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)

 

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 ESSEN-Kettwig

February 22, 2020

 

 

 

To the

Prosecutor's office in Düsseldorf

Fritz Roeber Str. 2

40213 Dusseldorf

 

 

 

Here: Criminal complaint against LG-D´dorf judge Ms. Jungclaus, against OLG-D´dorf judge Wolks-

          Falter, against OLG-D´dorf judge Grabensee, against OLG-D´dorf judge Mrs. Baan, as well

          against LG judge Mrs. Tigges, against Mr. Wermeckes (still on duty) and against H. Bünten

         (retired) for crimes in the sense of Section 331 of the Criminal Code or legal deflection in the sense

          of § 339 StGB, too LG Az 2b o 271/01.

 

Abbreviations used

 

AG= a magistrate´s court

ASt = proponent, applicant, petitioner

Az = Number of File

Bl. = sheet of official files

BGH= supreme political Tribunal of Germany

BGB a.F. = Civil Code of old Revision

D´dorf = Düsseldorf (capital of State: North-Rhine-Westphalia=NRW)

DM = money of Germany until 31.1.2002

€ = current money of European Uniom (EU)

EGBGB = Introduction-law of Civil Code

EuGVVO =

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

FA= Tax office

FG = Financial Tribunal

FRG = Federal Republic of Germany

FSK = declaratory lawsuit

GA = Court records, court files

GenStAnw = Office of general Attorney

GG = Constitution of Germany, basic Law

GS = Secretary office

G'scher = the follower

GVG = Tribunal Constitution Law

GVP = Business Distribution plan between the Judges of a tribunal

i.S.d. = at the sense of

LG = regional court (of Düsseldorf)

NAB = non-remedial decisions = instructions for blind

NJW = review of juridical articles    

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

NZB= complaint against the non permission of legal complaint

ObStAnw = Upper State Attorney

OFD = Direction of tax offices

OLG= Court of appeal (of Düsseldorf)

PKH= demand for financial judicial aid

RA = lawyer, advocate

StGB= Germany´s penal code

StPO = Germany´s penal procedure
TDM = Thousand of DM

v.A.w = promoted from office

VU = default judgement

ZPO = Civil Procedure Code

 

Dear Sirs and Madames,

 

Herewith the undersigned, address as above, after the end of the procedure 2b o 271/01, bring criminal

complaint against the named LG judge Ms. Jungclaus (currently at the 7th civil chamber LG-D´dorf), against

the OLG judge Ms Wolks-Falter (currently at the 23rd Senate of the OLG-D´dorf), against the OLG-D´dorf

judges Ms. Grabensee (currently at the 14th Senate of the OLG-D´dorf) and against Ms. Baan (currently at

the 2nd Senate OLG-D´ dorf), against LG judge Ms. Tigges, against judge Mr Wermeckes and Mr. Bünten

(the latter now retired), for multiple deliberate crimes in the sense of § 331 StGB to Az 2b o 271/01 and

many more,

or due to several legal violations against § 339 StGB u. against laws (e.g. Art. 101 GG, Art. 103 GG, § 75 GVG,

§ 122 GVG, GVP of the years 2001/2009/2010/2011/2012, § 47 ZPO, § 48 ZPO, BGB).

 

The accused OLG judges Ms. Grabensee / Ms. Baan / Ms. Jungclaus) then (in 2009-2012) Member of the

11th Senate, arbitrarily (i.e. according to the putsch plan of the then chairman of the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate,

Winfried Bünten) the laws massively undermined from the inside; (whereby Ms. Jungclaus signed 56 resolutions

as OLG pseudo-chairwoman until April 21, 2011; the OLG judges Ms. Grabensee and Mr. Dahm each signed

28 illegal resolutions in February 2010 and March 2010) and the 3 OLG conspiratorial groups of the 11th Senate

(see below) with a total of 99 unlawful resolutions attempted to create fait accompli against the plaintiff.

 

The judge Wolks-Falter, formerly i.e. in 2001 Member of the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf, has deliberately

ignored the ZPO / BGB / StGB regulations in order to satisfy the unlawful instruction of July 4, 2001 by the then

chairwoman, Ms. Tannert, and to harm the plaintiff. She signed decisions as a "single judge", although she was

"not a single judge" according to § 348 ZPO (348a ZPO).

 

On March 23, 2009, Ms. Tigges, as the pseudo-chairwoman, led an illegal LG committee and passed 4 resolutions;

on March 24, 2009, she again led as pseudo-chairwoman 10 times an illegal LG committee with the corresponding

number of resolutions; on April 15, 2009 she performed again as a pseudo-chairperson 14 times an illegal LG

committee, more than 28 times a wrongful LG committee with a corresponding number of 28 illegal decisions;

before, as well as after, the above Date participated several times in actions against the plaintiff,

which is why she was charged with official liability suits (2010 and 2015).

 

Ms. Jungclaus was then (2009-2011) at the 11th Senate OLG-D´dorf (and confidante of Mr. Bünten), and was

responsible for realizing the plot against the plaintiff; she has the other OLG judges (Ms. Baan) recruited.

Bünten and Ms. Baan in turn recruited Mr. Wermeckes. Wermeckes brought Ms. Grabensee and Mr. Dahm

into the conspiracy.

 

The intent of all parties involved in the following plot against the plaintiff has thus been proven.

After the Putsch Club was dissolved, after her "transfer" to the Düsseldorf Regional Court, Ms. Jungclaus

reciprocated the plaintiff in various resolutions, as will be reported later.

 

Mr. Wermeckes (or the "Phantom of the Opera of the OLG 11th Senate") led as pseudo-chairman on February 16, 2010 and March 30, 2010 a total of 28 illegal OLG bodies (Mr Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Mr Dahm) with decree of 28 illegal decisions. By the end of May 2010 the 3 different judge groups of the 11th Senate had stepped in and signed a further 32 decisions; by the end of December 2011 another 5 resolutions; he gave absolution to himself and to the other OLG offenders.

 

Ms. Baan enthusiastically completed all of the legal inflections assigned to her first at the OLG-11. Senate since September 2009 to around May 2012 and rejected from May. 2012 as a member of the 18th Senate until her removal / "transfer" almost all OLG-rejecting resolutions against the immediate complaints / hearings / counter notices raised by the plaintiff as "inadmissible"; She granted absolution to herself and to the other offenders (Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Müller / Bünten) for the violations of the law; and vice versa: the other accomplices (Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes) relieved Ms. Baan of bias; She has stubborn and stiffly refused to give an official statement, despite the repeated requests for partiality against her and the explicit requests; she was even rejected as "persona non grata", but was protected from Malsch until October 2014. She had been the subject of several lawsuits / PKH, which are buried by the LG / OLG accomplices.

 

The process 2b o 271/01 and many more as thus (2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 194/07, 2b o 77/08) blocked by more than 3.8 years. The defeat and dissolution of the "putsch club of the OLG-11. Senate", led to feelings of revenge among the other judges of the LG / OLG-D´dorf; finally the official liability suit 2b o 271/01 with claims for damages, regarding the breach of duty by the officials of the FA-Mettmann in the years 1979-2006 against the plaintiff (engineer + inventor), with (already indicated / proven) litigation on August 30, 2017 and . 18.10.17 have rejected.

 

It is here requested against the above, Judge (Ms. Jungclaus) at the Düsseldorf Regional Court, and against

the LG judge Mrs. Tigges (currently unknown where she works), against the OLG judges (Mrs. Baan /

/ Ms Wolks-Falter / Ms. Grabensee), as well as against Wermeckes and Bünten, to initiate investigations

and open public criminal proceedings. Earlier charges can be brought in.

 

  1. Facts

 

A1. The plaintiff (engineer + inventor) was blackmailed by the FA-Mettmann, his factory to realize his

        Patents to build here (in FRG); After rejection of the extortion, the FA invented the alleged

       Tax evasion to hide the double entry errors about 511 TDM;

       the FA has pledged to banks for alleged debts of DM 333.32 thousand; Is looted more than 264,500 DM;

       the plaintiff was imprisoned in December 1992 for the fictitious debt.

       Because of the attachments and because of the fictitious debts (which until 1999) targeted against the

        plaintiff, the plaintiff's company went bankrupt, the finished factory to Ruined, patent rights expire,

       and marriage broken.

      

        At the FG-D´dorf the plaintiff (1986-2006) won more than 30 lawsuits against the FA, and the FA-

        Mettmann began to reimburse the looted bit by bit:

       Last reimbursement on December 15, 2006 after a "settlement" before the 4th Senate of the FG-D´dorf.

       Total of the individual reimbursements: approx. DM 248 thousand. (no interest, and not even all the

     capital !!)

 

A2. With the official liability suit of 5.2.2001 the plaintiff has claims for damages before the LG-D´dorf

       asserted (for factory, lost subsidy bonus, pension, compensation for pain and suffering) and for this

       submitted a PKH application (with the same date on February 5, 2001).

       The 1st occupation of the 2nd civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf (Mrs. Tannert/ Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Wolks-Falter/

       Mrs. Stöve /Mr Schumacher) fell due to the right-wing inflections of Mrs. Tannert, Mrs. Fuhr, Mrs. Wolks-

        Falter, Mrs. Stöve u. Schumacher on.

       (Document No. 1; application to AG-Essen for a supervisor, decision on 7.3.2000

 

A3. On April 30, 2001, an application for bias against Ms. Tannert was filed; She gave on May 18, 2001

         one "Official statement" (Document No. 2), and confirms the criminal offenses against her.

        (Secret applications to AG-Essen to get a supervisor with reservation of consent,

         Merging the two official liability lawsuits dated June 21, 1999 and February 5, 2001 and leadership

         of the two lawsuits under Az 2b o 118/99; Note: the OFD-D´dorf complained against it.)

 

A4. On July 2, 2001, Ms. Wolks-Falter declined to issue a separate Az for February 5, 2001

        official liability lawsuit filed with the LG, and signs the handwritten draft

         "in representation of the chairwoman" (document No. 3). The 2 procedures from 21.6.1999 (Az 2b o

        118/99) and the Lawsuit from February 5, 2001, at the direction of Ms. Tannert, they were stitched

        together and under Az 118/99 guided; There was a dispute between RA and LG judges with serious

       consequences.

 

A5. On July 2nd, 2001 the illegal LG committee (Mrs. Stöve / Mrs. Wolks-Falter / Mrs. Schmidt-Kötters),

       without the responsible chairperson, makes a decision, with which the request for partiality

       against Ms. Tannert is dismissed as unfounded.

       The non-competent above LG committee violates § 75 GVG, Art. 101 GG, GVP of

        Year 2001. (Document No. 4)

 

A6. On July 4th, 2001, Ms. Tannert saw the handwritten draft of Ms. Wolks- Falter

        and leaves her a note that due to § 47 ZPO is not permissible the Mrs. Wo-Fa to sign

        with " in representation of the chairwoman ". (Document No. 5); Process fraud order.

 

A7. Ms. Wolks-Falter immediately changes the line objected by Ms Tannert and signs it i.e.

       Rejection of the separate Az for the lawsuit of February 5, 2001, as a "sole judge". (Document No. 6)

 

A8. Against the decision of July 2, 2001 by the illegal and non-competent LG committee

      (Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter / Ms. Schmidt-Kötters), the commissioned RA raises on July 17, 2001

       one immediate complaint.

 

 

A9. On July 20, 2001 with just a few words handwritten on the part Ms. Wolks-Falter on the complaint

   of the RA, who is again a criminal offender, becomes the complaint for decision forwarded

       to OLG-Düsseldorf (receipt no.7). Another legal violation against Art. 101 GG, against ZPO.

 

A10. Against the decision of July 6, 2001 by the alleged "single judge" Ms. Wolks-Falter

          the commissioned Lawyer made an immediate complaint on August 1, 2001

         and on Aug. 2, 2001 the RA asked for the transfer decision of the Chamber

         to Mrs. Wolks-Falter to work as a "single judge".

  

A11. On July 31, 2001, the RA's immediate complaint against the LG decision of July 2, 2001

         (Rejection of the application for bias against Ms. Tannert) on the part of the OLG committee

         (Ms. Obst-Oellers /Mr Stobbe /Mr Bender) rejected as unfounded (!!).

 

A12. The complaint against the decision of July 6, 2001 by the alleged "sole judge" Ms. Wolks-Falter

         had not yet been decided on December 6, 2001 and therefore the plaintiff personally chose one

         Reminder sent to the 2b chamber.

 

A13. Because of the parallel liability proceedings of Düsseldorf Verlag "Markt Intern" and the

           protests of the plaintiffs and of RAe there (because of the illegal decisions Ms. Wolks-Falter,

           and because of the crimes of Ms. Tannert & Co on Az 2b o 118/99 and many more)

           the entire occupation of the 2b civil chamber changed around Nofrom 25, 2001.

           Approx. February 2002 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll takes over the chair of the 2b chamber.

           (Document No. 7).

         Ms. Wolks-Falter is promoted to OLG-D´dorf judge (!!!) a few years later.

 

A14. On December 18, 2002 the new chairwoman (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) was rejected because of bias

        and despite memories the request for exclusion rejected only on 1/17/2008 (after almost 6 years!)

        by one illegally tinkered LG committee (Ms Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt) as unfounded

        The judges of the 2b civil chamber do not know GVG and GG at all !!

 

A15. The PKH application filed on February 5, 2001 was therefore approved on April 4, 2003 after 2 years (!!)

        by a legal adverse committee, where the accused Strupp-Müller participated, as unfounded (!!)

        pointed. Decision signed Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Adam

 

A16. From the above and for other reasons Ms. Strupp-Müller was rejected on May 5, 2003 as biased.

 

A17. On May 11, 2005, an illegal LG committee led by the rejected Mrs Stockschlaeder- Nöll,

        where Mr. Galle also participated, rejects the application for exclusion dated May 5th, 2003

       against Strupp-Müller as unfounded, as well as the complaint delivery without advance payment.

 

A18. On April 21, 2006 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll determined the amount in dispute (in GA sheet no. 408);

         she arranges for cost officials HABICH to receive files 2b o 271/01 after consultation, and

         checks whether the paid advance payment for the above Az is covered.

 

A19. Ms. Strupp-Müller is leading an illegal LG committee on August 9, 2007 (with participation

         by Mr. Galle and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser) and rejects the new PKH application on 9.9.2005.

 

A20. On the same day (August 9, 2007), Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser contacted the plaintiff and claimed

        that not to have found an application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll for Az 2b o 271/01.

       (Distraction against the process fraud of August 9, 2007) and preparation of the next one.

       To decide on the plaintiff's memories of the request for exclusion, 18.12.2002, in the

       Files are included, Engelkamp-Neeser is silent. She arranges for the cost officer Mr HABICH

       check whether the plaintiff's payments for the court fees for 2b o 271/01 are sufficient.

          

A21. On August 29, 2007, the cost officer Mr Habich made an illegal addition to files 2b o271/01.

        You can see the process fraud (Mr Habich /Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser);

        he falsifies the content of the file with the provisionally accepted (increased!) value of the dispute

      and he with- pays an open balance for court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69. The file supplement

      (GA Bl. 476R) was superfluous because on April 21, 2006 Stockschlaeder-Nöll correctly determined

     the amount in dispute was, and also contradicted previous from Habich filing notes (see attachments)

 

A22. On September 18, 2007 (i.e. only three weeks after the file forgery by Mr. Habich dated

        August 29, 2007) Ms. Strupp-Müller leads an illegal LG committee (with the participation of

        Mr. Galle and of Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser) and refuses to serve the complaint with reference

       5.2.2001/ (with reasons) on Mr. Habich's fraud, i.e. that the court fees are still would not

        be paid in full. Ms. Bückner secretary of the LG office reported it on September 18, 2007.

        

A23.Ms. Strupp-Müller went to the OLG-D´dorf 18th Senate immediately afterwards (approx.

        10th October 2007 (not 1st November 2007)) ordered (!!); an immediate complaint

         against the LG decision dated September 18, 2007 disappears in time.

 

 A24. The chairman of the 18th Senate (Malsch) manipulated the 2 file numbers for the complaints

       against LG resolutions from Aug 9, 2007 and Sept. 18, 2007; during the same time many leaves

       out files 2b o 271/01 disappear. (Reconstruction of manipulation can be forwarded)

 

A25. Ms. Strupp-Müller will return to the LG-D´dorf around mid-2008, promoted to "Chairwoman

         Judge" (!!!)

 

A26. Ms. Köstner-Plümpe led an illegal body on January 17th, 2008 as the pseudo-chairwoman

           (Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt) consisting of girls from the judge Galle's chamber

          and according to instructions from Stockschlaeder-Nöll or after consultation with Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser,

           exonerates (after almost 6 years) Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from the accusation of bias from

           December 18, 2002 on Az 2b o 271/01; The exclusion request is rejected as unfounded (!!!);

          Legal violations: against Art. 101 GG, against § 75 GVG; Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe was only in 2008

           briefly promoted to the 2b chamber and later to the 3rd civil senate of the OLG-D´dorf (!!!).

 

A27. Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser tried in July-Sept. 2008 to eliminate

           plaintiffs and correspond with emails secretly with AG-Essen judge Mr Seelmann

           They put him under pressure to provide a "guardian with consent " for the plaintiff

         to order. The secret correspondence (buried to Az 2b o 118/99) has been discovered

           and on December 16, 2008, was filed an application for bias in all pending legal proceedings

           against the two women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser).

 

A28. The participation of the 2b chamber member (Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann) in the merged body

         (Mrs. Tigges / Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Hoffmann) on March 23/24, 2009 and April 15, 2009, where no

         chairman Judge according to GVG § 75, corresponds to the pattern of legal infractions conceived

         and leads on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll, who took advantage of the "girls" to relieve her

        of the allegation of bias because of the secret requests and secret emails to the Judge of

         the AG-Essen.

         On March 23/24, 2009, the above illegal LG committee under the leadership of the pseudo-

         Chairwoman Ms. Tigges, issued 14 resolutions; therefore Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll would have

         no laws injured; The exclusion request has been rejected 14 times as unfounded (!!!);

         The "prompter" (French word = whisperer, Stockschlaeder-Nöll) was very relieved afterwards.

         Especially since she (Stockschlaeder-Nöll), about the support of the "superman" (Bünten) in the

         complaints raised, was certain. (Document No. 11-21)

         The immediate complaints raised are with non-remedial decisions (= NAB) dated April 15, 2009

         all signed by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Tigges and many on the part of Ms Dr. Hoffmann, with

         references went to the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate; the "LG order" ended with the following sentence:

               "The complaint does not give rise to any of the statements in the

                   depart from the contested decision "(Document No. 18)

                 (NAB from May 20, 2009, Az 2b o 118/99 signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann)

  

 A29. The delivery of the complaint will be based on the value in dispute determined by the Stockschlaeder-

          Nöll on April 21, 2006 delivered to the defendant in September 2010 (after 4 years of blockade !!!).

         The damage from that Illegal entry on August 29, 2007 in the files by cost officials Habich and

         illegal LG bodies by Strupp-Müller, as well as by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Tigges,

         was not redeemed due to the late delivery of the lawsuit in 2010, also in 2019- made.

 

 B. Chronological section on the crimes committed by Ms. Grabensee / Ms. Baan /Ms Jungclaus

       /Mr Wermeckes /Mr Dahm at that time (2009-2012) judges of the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate

   

B1. The immediate complaints raised against the decisions of the illegal LG committee (Ms. Tigges/

         / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Hoffmann) from March 23/24, 2009, with the blind instructions (= NAB)

         from 15.4.2009 of the illegal bodies, first land at the OLG-11. Senate and on Sept. 23, 2009

         the 14 complaints will be returned as unfounded (in part as inadmissible) and all subject to

         a charge pointed; the incorrect cost decisions challenged and never decided.

      

B2. On September 23, 2009, 14 resolutions of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate were issued

     with the following signatures:

  1. signed Mr Bünten /Mr Mielke /Mr Müller Az 11 W 36/09 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01)
  2. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller Az 11 W 37/09
  3. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan Az 11 W 38/09 (LG-Az 2b o 154/08)
  4. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller Az 11W 39/09
  5. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan Az 11 W 40/09 (LG-Az 2b o 194/07)
  6. Bünten / Mielke / Müller, Az 11 W 41/09
  7. Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan, Az 11 W 42/09 (LG-Az 2b o 172/08)
  8. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller, Az 11 W 43/09
  9. Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan Az 11 W 44/09 (LG-Az 2b o 145/08)
  10. Bünten / Mielke / Müller Az 11 W 45/09
  11. Bünten / Jungclaus / Ms. Baan Az 11 W 46/09 (LG-Az 2b o 29/08)
  12. Bünten / Mielke / Müller Az 11 W 49/09
  13. Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan Az 11 W 54/09 (LG-Az 2b o 118/99)
  14. Bünten / Jungclaus / Müller Az 11 W 59/09 (LG-Az 2b o 45/09)

   (Document No. 22-35)

 

B3. The above 14 resolutions of 23.9.2009 are delivered to the plaintiff in 2 packages with the speculative

        thought that the plaintiff would not have been able to contest them on time; on this occasion is

         filled an "application for bias against the OLG chairman Bünten"; He gave up on it

          7.12.2009 from a "official statement", which is also commented on by the plaintiff.

              (Document No. 36 and 39-44)

 

B4. The situation comes to a head when Mr Mielke leaves Senate 11; Conceives the plot

       the "superman" (Bünten) and reveals it to Ms. Jungclaus; Ms. Baan likes to advertise this

       participates. However, since the number of judges is not sufficient, 3 more judges (Mr Wermeckes /

       Mrs. Grabensee /Mr Dahm) consulted for reinforcement to deceive the plaintiff. Everyone likes to do it

       Mr. Wermeckes follows is the "Phantom of the Opera of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate"

                      remained in history.

 

           The putsch plan of the supporter of the right-wing bends, who suffers from pathological

                      self-admiration (Bünten) failed. He will soon join the former presiding judge

                                  of the 11th Senate of the FG-D´dorf, Dr. Nieland, afford.

 

B5. At the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate are formed under the leadership of the former "superman"

               (i.e. the Chairman Bünten) three groups of judges to eliminate the plaintiff.

 

B6. The 1st group consists of Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm; Their name appears for the first time.

            The committee was led on February 16, 2010 by the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes (violation of

             Art. 101 GG, § 122 GVG) and relieved from the allegation of bias in 14 o.g. Resolutions

             the members of the next group (Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller). Visible conspiracy.

             (Document No. 45-58)

 

B7. Before expire the legal deadline of 14 days for contesting the above 14 resolutions of

             16.2.2010, the 2nd group (Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Baan / Müller) is already active

             on February 18, 2010 by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Jungclaus; this group in turn in the above 14

             Resolutions, relieves the charge of prejudice to the superman (Bünten) (violation

             against Art. 101 GG, § 122 GVG). The "Phantom of the Opera "(Wermeckes) also participates

           in this group des 11th Senate (Document No. 59-72)

 

B8. That is still not enough, and on February 22, 2010 the 3e Group is active, led by

             chairperson (Bünten) with theatrical relief; Discovered in the 14 resolutions of this group

             the members of the 11th Senate Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller) plus the "Phantom of the

             Opera ". (Wermeckes) (Document No. 73-86)

 

B9. The 1st group Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm under the leadership of the "Phantom of the Opera

             (Wermeckes) is active again on March 30th, 2010 and rejects 14 illegal decisions

              hearing complaints raised as "inadmissible": (Document No. 87-100)

            The 1st conspiratorial group therefore knows no violation of § 122 GVG or Art. 101 GG.

 

B10. The 2nd group (Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Baan / Müller) under the leadership of the pseudo-

             chairwoman, Ms. Jungclaus, rejects the next day i.e. on March 31, 2010 in 14 resolutions the hearing

             complaints raised as inadmissible. Of course, the phantom of the opera must not be missing!

           The above i.e. the second conspiratorial group therefore knows no violation of Section 122 GVG or

             Article 101 GG.                                                       (Document No. 101-114)

 

B11. The 3e group is operating with a slight delay, ie only on May 12, 2010; in 14 right-

            adverse resolutions the hearings against the resolutions of September 23, 2009 as unfounded

             back; you can see the name of the "Phantom of the Opera" (Wermeckes)

                                                                                                 (Document No. 115 - 128)

 

B12. The BVerfG complaints lodged against it (regarding LG decision of 23.3.2009, the OLG-D´dorf-

           Resolutions of September 23, 2009, of February 16, 2010, of February 18, 2010, of February 22, 2010)

         are to be decided on June 11, 2010 not accepted. (BVerfG-Az 2 BvR 845/10, decision, signed

         Mr Osterloh/Mr Mellinghof/Mr Gerhard); The BVerfG judges allow the OLG-D´dorf judges to

                 commit legal deflection !!!                                (Document No. 129)

 

B13. Another BVerfG complaints against the decisions of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate of

          30.3.2010, 31.3.2010 and 12.5.2010 is only on October 4, 2011 on the part of Mr Mellinghof/

         Ms Lübbe-Wolff /Mr Huber not accepted for decision. So until October 4, 2011 were the Putsch Club

          -Members (also Bünten, Ms. Jungclaus, Wermeckes, Ms. Grabensee, Dahm, Ms. Baan)

            further decisions excluded; nevertheless, they ignored the legal situation.

 

B14. The conspiracy of the OLG-D´dorf-11. Senate, only until May 12, 2010, cost the taxpayer 2 * 14 = 28

           LG resolutions, as well as 7 * 14 = 98 OLG resolutions (on September 23, 2009, February 16, 2010,

             February 18, 2010,22.2.2010, 30.3.2010, 31.3.2010, 12.5.2010, plus the 2 BVerfG resolutions) in total

              The taxpayer wrongly had to pay 130 times for the crimes committed by the LG / OLG judges;

              expressed in money: many six-numbers amounts have burdened the D'dorf judiciary.

 

B15. The result was that the main actors of the conspiracy (Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes)

             are "relocated" in all directions (Bünten to Duisburg, Ms. Jungclaus to LG- D'dorf,

             Wermeckes to the west), but some members of the conspiracy, with revenge feel, have

             stayed with the OLG (like Mrs. Baan, she continues to work on the 18th Senate and currently

            at the 2nd Senate; Mr. Dahm currently at the 8th Senate); Ms. Grabensee for participating in the

              Conspiracy also promoted to chair judge !!! of OLG-D´dorf, currently at the 14th Civil Senate.

 

B16. What standards and criteria are used for the promotion (!!!) of the offender Ms. Grabensee to

            OLG-D'dorf presiding judge, it remains a secret of the judiciary.

 

B17. After many violations of law (the LG / OLG judge committed in several processes, desribed

           in other lawsuits e.g. from 10.10.2010 and others against OLG judges of the 11th Senate, or

           Az 40 Js 3845/15 against judges of the 18th Senate), commits fraud the 18th Senate (Malsch /

           Ms. Glaeser / Anger) on 3 September 2015 and after manipulation / addition / change of

           Legislative texts of the BGB a.F. (e.g. § 209) determine that the claims for damages allegedly on

          "July 31, 2006" would be "statute of limitations". The process fraud is clear evidence of the

         intention to harm.

           After the plaintiff's vehement reaction, Mr. Malsch was relieved of his post and chased away.

          Mr. Anger stayed with the OLG-D´dorf 27th Civil Senate and Mrs. Glaeser with the 18th Civil Senate

  

B18. The date "July 31, 2006" of the OLG fraudster Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger was the third for the

         "alleged limitation" of the claims for damages; before there were two (2) incorrect LG decisions;

          i.e. once on November 26, 2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Mrs Jürging

          with the finding that the "statute of limitations had occurred on December 31, 2009"; and

          a second time by decision dated May 28, 2014 Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag,

         "Limitation of claims for damages allegedly occurred on June 30, 2010"

 

B19. The LG committee Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Mr Frank identifies himself on

         May 11, 2016 completly and unconditionally with the OLG process fraud committed on 3 September 2015

  1. Senate on Az 18 W 1/13 (Mr Malsch / Ms. Glaeser /Mr Anger), and with final judgment dismisses

        everyone Claims for damages as allegedly "barred" on "July 31, 2006".

        The LG committee (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) is therefore knowingly an accomplice

        to crime i.e. on the legal diffraction of the OLG-18. Senate (Mr Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr Anger).

        The 2b chamber has appealed against the fraud on 11 May 2016. (Costs!!)

 

B20. The arguments contained in the appointment dated 18.8.2016 are from the OLG committee

         of the 18th Senate ignored and the claims for damages with judgment of October 18, 2017 on

       Az 18 U 69/16 as on "30.6.2000 !!" allegedly "barred" rejected. The new OLG fraud of the judges

        (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) were uncovered around the end of August 2019 and

         on 19.9.2019 reported to the public prosecutor's office in Düsseldorf (Az 141 Js 2483/19)

 

B21. The process fraud of the OLG-D´dorf from October 18, 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 "capped" it BGH

          judges panel (Mr Herrmann /Mr Seiters /Mr Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) on May 24, 2018.

 

  1. Legal position, GG, BGH case law, StGB

 

C1. "The judges are subject to the law (Art. 97 GG) and there is a violation of the law,

        if a decision cannot be justified with legal rules ".

 

    Article 97 of the Basic Law (GG) guarantees the protection of legal validity against attacks from "inside",

   i.e. judges.

 

C2. According to § 339 StGB, the legal violations are punishable with a prison sentence of 5 years and

       the Limitation period (for general offenses that are subject to the limitation period) depends on

       the amount of the penalty, i.e. the limitation period in general cases with the threat of punishment

       of 5 years, expires after 5 years (§ 78 No. 4 StGB).

 

     The start of the limitation period is based on § 78a StGB (after a procedure has becomes final)

      completed). The limitation period is suspended in the cases of § 78b StGB.

 

C3. The procedure 2b o 271/01 went through all four instances (LG / OLG / BGH / BVerfG) and is

       only legally terminated by decision of the BVerfG of 20.9.2018. (BVerfG decision received on

        6.10.2018) (documents already provided)

 

C4. Concerning. the beginning of the limitation period for the lodging of appeals regarding damages

      Claims due to damage caused by decisions made by civil servants (f.e. of Tax office) apply to Section

     839 BGB and the BGH Decision that

 

           "The limitation period can only start if the victim knows

             that the official acted INTENTIONALLY. "

 

           Proof of the "intent" of the LG / OLG judges provides the following:

 

C4.1. The LG decision of 4.4.2003 on Az 2b o 271/01 (PKH rejection) signed Ms Brückner-Hoffmann /

            Ms Strupp-Müller / Ms. Adam; unlawful body; Violation of § 839 (1) BGB, Art. 101 GG Section

             75 GVG offense covered by section 339 of the Criminal Code with up to 5 years' imprisonment.

 

C4.2. The LG decision of May 11, 2005 on Az 2b o 271/01 (signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Drees /

          Mr Galle) with decided 5 points and below (the point 4) the alleged discharge of the

          Ms. Strupp-Müller on the part of the above unlawful body that is not competent under the GVP

         (Violations of Art. 101 GG, § 47 ZPO); Crime completed; Penalty according to StGB up to 5 years in prison

 

C4.3. The entry dated 29 Aug. 2007 in files 2b o 271/01 page 476R (R = back) signed Mr HABICH

          about "provisionally accepted (increased) value in dispute" and supposedly "open rest"

          for court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69 (§ 331 StGB etc.) (see attachments)

         (Deliberate crime with the intention of helping the judges to defend themselves and serious

         Consequences of damage for the plaintiff; See request for payment /settlement of € 245.69

          from 27.9.2019 of the Central Paying Agent Justice Hamm for Az 2b o 271/01) (see attachments)

 

B4.4. The LG decision from Sept. 18, 2007 to Az 2b o 271/01 (signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser /

          Galle) with which the complaint is served with reference to the note from the cost officer Mr HABICH

           dated Aug 29, 2007 (allegedly not fully paid court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69)

             is rejected; illegal body, violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG, § 47 ZPO.

             Trial fraud completed and punishable by § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison

 

C4.5. The LG decision of January 17, 2008 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel /

         Ms. Schmidt (Application for bias from December 18, 2002 against Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll -

         - allegedly - unfounded).Illegal body on January 17, 2008, violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG.

         The date 18.12.2002 of the application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll becomes

         deliberately falsified to come to the conclusion that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll does not LIE in

         wrote her "official statement"

        Offense completed and punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years imprisonment

 

C4.6. The 2 * 14 = 28 LG resolutions of March 23/24, 2009 and from April 15th, 2009 are legal

          unfairly adopted by the LG committee and led by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Tigges / Ms.

          Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann, but are conceived on the part of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll;

          she (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) speculated that the plaintiff's repeated violations of the law

          and legal violations of the above LG panel would not notice.

         Offense of the "girls" completed and punishable according to § 339 StGB with up to 5 years

         imprisonment.

 

C4.7. The 14 OLG resolutions of 23 September 2009 of the 11th Senate signed by Bünten, 7 times by all

          Ms. Jungclaus and 6 times on the part of Ms. Baan with the illegal "capping" of the legal

         fraud of the LG judges (Mrs. Tigges / Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann) and the faulty cost

         decisions, prove the intention to harm the plaintiff. The limitation period is not yet expired.

         Offense completed and punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years imprisonment.

 

C4.8. The 14 OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate dated February 16, 2010, all signed by the pseudo-chairman

            Wermeckes, as well as on the part of Ms. Grabensee, and Mr. Dahm prove that they are aware of the

            have done a legal bend (discharge of the judge group Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /Mr Müller, from

           accusation of bias) to harm the plaintiff. The intent of the o.G. disclosed also participation in further

           decisions in the years 2010-2011; in this respect is the crime internalized and accomplished.

             According to § 339 StGB punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment.

 

C4.9. The 14 OLG resolutions of February 18, 2010 signed by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Jungclaus

           and 9 times by the Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes) and also 10 times by Ms. Baan

           prove that they deliberately and deliberately did the legal penalty (discharge of the

  1. Bünten accused of bias, although they were not allowed to) to the plaintiff damage.

          The resolution of the above Ms. Jungclaus in particular also reveals participation in others

           Resolutions in the years 2009-2019; in this respect the crime is internalized and completed.

          After § 339 StGB punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment.

 

C4.10. The 14 OLG resolutions of 22 February 2010 of the 11th Senate signed by Bünten, 7 times by all

            Ms. Jungclaus and 6 times on the part of Ms. Baan, with the illegal "capping" of the legal

           violations of the OLG judges (Mr. Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

            Müller) and the erroneous cost decisions prove the intention to the plaintiff damage.

           Especially since Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller participated in the second group

            from February 18, 2010 and did not grant the plaintiff a statutory period of 14 days.

           The limitation period for criminal prosecution of the above Offender is not yet expired.

          The offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison.

 

C4.11. The 14 OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate from March 30, 2010 signed by the pseudo-chairman

            Wermeckes, as well as on the part of Ms. Grabensee, and Mr. Dahm prove that they are aware

           of the Have damaged the justice (to participate in the unlawful body) and Harmed the plaintiff.

           The intent of the o.G. also discloses the participation of Mr. Wermeckes further resolutions in the years

           2010-2012; in this respect the crime is internalized and accomplished. According to § 339 StGB

         punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment.

 

C4.12. The 14 OLG resolutions of March 31, 2010 signed by the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Jungclaus

             and 10 times by the Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes) and also 10 times by Ms. Baan

             prove that they deliberately and deliberately did the legal penalty (discharge of the

            Mr. Bünten from the charge of bias, although they were not allowed to) to the plaintiff

            damage.

            The resolution of the above Ms. Jungclaus in particular also reveals participation in others

            Resolutions in the years 2009-2019; in this respect the crime is internalized and completed.

            According to § 339 StGB punishable with up to 5 years in prison.

            The limitation period has not yet expired.

 

C4.13. The 14 OLG resolutions of 12 May 2010 of the 11th Senate signed by Bünten, 7 times by all

            Ms. Jungclaus and 6 times by Ms. Baan and 3 times by Wermeckes prove with the unlawful

            "capping" of the legal violations of the OLG judges (Mr. Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee/ Dahm

             / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller) and the incorrect cost decisions, the intention to harm

               the plaintiff.

            Especially since Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller participated in the second group

            from February 31, 2010 and did not grant the plaintiff a statutory period of 14 days.

           The limitation period for criminal prosecution of the above Offender is not yet expired.

           The offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison.

 

C4.14. All of the above Resolutions are contested with several complaints to the BVerfG

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

 

C5. The OLG-D´dorf decision of 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser /

            / Anger; The process fraud consisted of manipulating / changing / supplementing the legal texts

            BGB a.F. (e.g. § 209) to come to the conclusion that the claims for damages apply made

            with complaint 5.2.2001, were allegedly "time-barred" on "July 31, 2006".

            According to the Criminal Code, 5 years in prison are provided for the offense for all offenders

             

B6. The LG-D´dorf final judgment of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

         Ms. Gundlach /Mr Frank with rejection of all claims for damages due to alleged limitation

         on "31.7.2006" acc. OLG decision of 3.9.2015 i.e. after the process fraud to BGB a.F.

         The offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison

 

C7. OLG-D´dorf decision of 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) (see attachments)

        PKH for the Appeal rejected as unfounded; Process fraud to come to the conclusion that all

        Claims for damages on June 30, 2000 (!!) were allegedly barred.

        The offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison

         (see also Az 141 Js 2483/19

 

C8. OLG-D´dorf judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/17 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01) signed

          Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms Kirschner); see also Az 141 Js 2483/19.

         Process fraud to come to the conclusion that the claims for damages are asserted

         with complaint on February 5, 2001 on "June 30, 2000" were allegedly barred.

       The offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison

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

 

C9. Section 339 of the Criminal Code (Criminal Code) relates to "legal inflection"

               and reads as follows:

 

     "A judge, other civil servant or an arbitrator who is guilty in leading or deciding a case or who is guilty

       of defrauding the law is punished with a prison sentence of between one and five years."

 

     The legislator explains (Art. 19. No. 129, EGStGB), moreover that deliberate or

      knowingly not necessary, but "conditional resolution" is sufficient ".

 

Section 339 of the Criminal Code applies only to judges and applies to the protection and legitimacy

of the law but not to protect the judges. The judicial privilege is not used.

 

C10. The deed can be committed (according to the BGH):

 

C10.1. through violation of substantive law, for example through the application of invalid laws; or

C10.2. through incorrect application of the law, for example through a deviation from clear legal norms;

C10.3. or taking or disposing of a measure not provided for by law;

C10.4. or by falsifying the facts to which the law is to be applied;

C10.5. or by violating the obligation to provide information

              or exceeding the judicial discretion,

C10.6. or issuing an order to be enforced inappropriately prematurely.

 

C10.7. The violation of procedural norms can also suffice (BGH 32, 357; 42, 343; 47, 105).

C10.8. Legal inflection also results from illegal gathering of evidence.

C10.9. or by deliberately "overlooking" applications and some more

 

                     According to the case law of the BGH, it is necessary that:

 

C10.10. "due to the procedural violation the concrete danger of a wrong decision

                 is justified without any advantage or disadvantage having actually occurred ".

                 (BGH 42, pp. 343, 346, 356)

                                                                    The BGH adds:

 C10.11 "Bending of the law only exists if the offender is aware and serious

                Way away from law and order ".

                   The jurisprudence assumes that "the diffraction of the right from § 339 StGB,

                                                                     is more than the violation of binding legal norms ".

 

C10.12 The intent must be aimed at granting the right in favour or to the disadvantage of a party

               violate; no special intention is required (BGH 32, 360)

 

           From the above Compiling a few of the most important terms also results in some

           Necessary explanations: first about "conditional intent (and subjective fact):

          (For the BGH contradiction to the "conditional intent" see literature)

 

C10.13 Conditional intent, to take into account the special decision situation of the judge

              bear the judge's endorsement of the possibility of erroneous legal views

              internalized.

 

C10.14. Conditional intent also exists if the judge considers the legal incompatibility of a

                 Considers decision possible to achieve an appropriate one

                  But accepts the result; this does not require a completely foreign motivation.

 

C10.15. The deed is completed with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision.

 

C10.16. Her legal effectiveness is not important.

 

C10.17. Decisions that are "void" are also subject to the provisions of § 339 StGB.

 

                       The plaintiff adds the following sentence:

 

C10.18. "Even decisions that are subsequently overridden by another body,

              fulfill the facts of § 339 StGB. "That is the case here and the sentence is applicable.

 

C10.19. Now the practices of the accused Ms. Strupp-Müller / Galle / Habich / Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

              Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Hoffmann was then responsible for the plaintiff's official liability claims,

             depending on the 2b chamber of the LG-D´dorf are in the mirror above Case law

                analyzed and commented (with "Comments = Comm.:").

   

                        Conditional intent is sufficient for the legal defense (BGH 40, 276)

 

    "The deed is completed with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision,

     if this directly brings about the effect of a better or worse position of a party or can develop through

   the  realization ".

 

For the breaches of law by Wolks-Falter / Ms. Grabensee / Wermekes / Ms. Baan/ Ms. Tigges

(Bünten / Malsch / Ms. Glaeser, the fact is decisive that the process 2b o 271/01 and then the

appeal of August 18, 2016 with Az 18 U 69/16 (and then the revision or the NCB on the approval

of the revision BGH Az III ZR 332/17), where the criminal offenses (legal inflections) were committed,

ended only in October 2018, and thus the effects / consequences of the actions are unfolded.

(including loss of claims for damages, loss of the paid Court fees, loss of pension; Loss of factory,

cost of RAe, etc.); that means among other things that the offenses are not time-barred.

 

  1. Cases of legal violations (§ 339 StGB) in LG Düsseldorf decisions and evidence of intent

 

The offenses and the violations of the law are described in the following pages, provided with legal comments

(= Comments:), and finally documented with the LG decisions.

 

  1. Fall Ms. Wolks-Falter (2001)

 

D1. For the first time, Ms. Wolks-Falter sits on July 2, 2001 in the illegal LG committee of 2b civil

      chamber (Mrs. Stöve / Mrs. Wolks-Falter / Mrs. Schmidt-Kötters) and signs the rejection of the

     on April 20, 2001, an application for exclusion filed against Ms. Tannert for Az 2b o 271/01.

 

     Comments:

    She (Mrs. Wolks-Falter) had known that that was done by the then chairwoman Mrs. Tannert

    o.g. assembled body was illegal and Art. 101 GG, as well as § 75 GVG injured; In addition,

   Ms. Schmidt-Kötters was not a member of the 2b civil chamber, and only one Opportunity

     solution because it was also not provided for by the business distribution plan (= GVP).

    Mrs. Stöve benefited from the violation of the law / litigation fraud.

    She (Ms Stöve) was after fraud at OLG-D´dorf, and about 2 months later after her return

   to the LG D´dorf has been promoted to the chamber chairwoman (18b) of the LG-D´dorf (!!!).

    The deliberate criminal offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years'

      imprisonment for all signatories of the decision.

 

D2. "The offense is completed with the decree on July 2, 2001 of the legally unjustifiable one

         Decision because this immediately leads to the plaintiff's disadvantage

          and has also unfolded through the realization ".

 

        Comments:

       The unlawful decision 2.7.2001 of the unlawful body charges all subscribers and is enacted,

        in addition, it is referred to in later LG decisions;

        the offense is accomplished with disadvantages for the plaintiff, for which the signatories to the LG

       decision undermined the laws from within and thus made them punishable.

    

D3. On the offense of the above Women from July 2, 2001, the RA (and here ASt) reacted with a

        immediate complaint of 17.8.2001 against the decision Stöve/Ms. Wolks-Falter/Ms. Schmidt-Kötters

         (Az 2b o 118/99).

 

D4. The "next trial fraud" of Mrs. Wolks-Falter took place on July 2nd, 2001, with rejection of the

        Az for the official liability lawsuit of February 5, 2001, which she "in representaion of the chairwoman"

         in the handwriting drafts.

 

        Comments:

        The reason for the rejection of the Az for the complaint 5.2.2001 in the handwritten draft

        led to both the RA's immediate complaint and the plaintiff's protests personally

         to the LG President, as well as complaints from the OFD-D´dorf (at that time still in

         D'dorf resident).

 

 

D5. Ms. Wolks-Falter commits the most serious fraud on July 6, 2001.

 

         Comments:

       The weakness of Ms. Wolks-Falter also to fulfill Ms. Tannert's illegal wishes, can be proved

        when she (Wolks-Falter) received and has read the legal notice from July 4, 2001 from

       Mrs. Tannert. Ms. Tannert pointed out in the note that the Wo-Fa

       "not in conjunction with the chairwoman" should sign the decision about to reject the Az.

 

       Ms. Wolks-Falter then voluntarily christened herself "Single Judge", and the consequences of

       Ignoring criminal offense: She had already known that the 2b chamber did not make a transfer

       decision enact and insofar as she was not a "single judge i.S.d. § 348 ZPO".

       The fraud was committed on July 6, 2001 to show Ms. Tannert that she (Wolks-Falter)

       from the ZPO had a lot in mind and expected discrete approval from Mrs. Tannert.

       That the plaintiff could later receive and study the files and the fraud of

       any judge would ever uncover them, or this speculative idea has them

       driven to commit heavy legal inflection, for which, according to the Criminal Code,

       the punishment is up to 5 years Prison is provided.

 

D6. The next fraud is committed by the alleged single judge Mrs. Wolks-Falter on July 20, 2001

       

         Comments:

       The rush of the gang of four in gowns (Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter) the

       plaintiff to be switched off as quickly as possible is also the result of the non-remedial decision

     (= NAB) of July 20, 2001.

       One may not name as LG decision of the "swindler" and the alleged "single judge" Wolks-Falter,

       the "smearings of July 20, 2001" on the first page of the complaint of the RA of July 17, 2001,

       but these quickly show the intentions of the accused to complete conspiracy.

       She also signs as a SINGLE JUDGE !!!

       It transfers the RA's complaint of July 17, 2001 to the OLG in just a few handwritten letters Words

       and in order to convey the haste, the OLG writes the order "SOFORT". i.e. the OLG

       had to immediately announce the decision on the complaint (see document No. 5)

       The OLG decision was actually signed on July 31, 2001. Ms Obst-Oellers /Mr Stobbe /Mr Bender,

       Az 11 W 57/01, rejected for a fee. Criminal offense with up to 5 years imprisonment.

     

D7. Ms. Wolks-Falter made no official statement and after the breakup of the gang of four

        in gowns (Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter) in November 2001 disappeared

        from the Plaintiff's horizon; she later found a pleasant position as OLG judge !!!;

       Who took care of the promotion !!! the offender and the alleged "single judge"?

 

  1. Case OLG judge Mrs. Grabensee

 

E1. For the first time, the name of the judge Grabensee appears in the illegal OLG committee

       from 16.2.2010 to Az 2b o 271/01 and many more led by the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes,

       and signs 14 decisions on the day (February 16, 2010), exonerating the judges of the 2nd

       Judge group of the coup club of the 11th Senate OLG-D´dorf (Ms. Junclaus / Ms. Baan /Mr. Müller)

 

        Comments:

        The above OLG committee (Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm) violates on 16.2.2010

        Art. 101 GG and against § 122 GVG, because Mr. Wermeckes (the phantom of the opera)

        is not a chairman; He was a simple judge. Fr Grabensee was known everything.

 

        In addition, the panel (with the illegal composition on 16.2.2010) was not responsible for

        to decide the application for bias by a chamber member (Ms. Baan / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller).

        The staff was therefore not allowed to announce a decision. Ms. Grabensee also knew that

        she participated in an illegal and non-competent body on February 16, 2010;

        According to GVP, a chamber was responsible with the chairperson and its members.

        Knowledge of the real conditions should have prevented Ms. Grabensee from contacting

        the Litigation fraud (planned by Bünten) to participate. Nevertheless, she has 14 in fraud

        take part in it and like to be an accomplice to a crime covered by Section 339 of the Criminal Code

      

         The hearing complaints and the counter-presentation (=GGD), as well as the request for annulment

         of the OLG decisions signed Mr Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee /Mr Dahm have never been decided.

         The incorrect cost decisions too, i.e. stored at the Düsseldorf court register.

         Ms. Grabensee did not take into account the fact that the offense described was exposed.

 

         She had also known that a discharge to Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller on the part

         of the illegal OLG body was only theoretical and could have no legal effect.

 

        Contradicting OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate or OLG-18. Senate (without consideration

        In the plaintiff's view, the plaintiff's illegality on February 16, 2010) has none legal impact unfolds

       Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller continued to apply until the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate was

         dissolved and according to § 47 ZPO of every decision on Az 2b o 271/01 u.v.FROM as excluded

         The offense is with the help of the above. OLG body completed and this is on the part of § 339 StGB

        for All parties involved with a sentence of up to 5 years.

 

E2. The next 14 judgments by judge Mrs. Grabensee were on March 30, 2010, accomplished;

       she was again in the illegal OLG committee (Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm),

        led by the pseudo-presiding Wermeckes, striving to succeed in the process fraud enable.

 

       Comments:

      With the 14 resolutions passed on March 30, 2010, the hearing complaints were against the OLG

       resolutions rejected by the same body (Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm) as "inadmissible".

       (Ms. Grabensee) stayed with the OLG-D´dorf to participate in the plot against the plaintiff

       and a short time later became chairwoman of the 14th Senate !!!. Criminals promoted !!

     The multitude of offenders, who have been promoted may attract the attention of hunters

       of crime at don't escape. The offenders must be brought before a judge.

 

  1. Case Ms. Jungclaus

     

F1. In the previous sections there is a lot about the activity of the multiple offender Ms. Jungclaus

      (former confidante of the "superhuman" Bünten) described, and about the number of them

     signed resolutions are reported. In this section some data and Decisions named to show the tricks

       and criminal tendency of this woman, or how she circumvents the laws (not only in the context of

      the Putsch Club) or the laws from within undermined.

 

     Comments:

     On September 23, 2009, she signed a total of 7 illegal OLG resolutions on the above Az.

    (See point B2 above). She (Ms Jungclaus) did not recognize the validity of the overriding EU law.

    The 7 offenses have been completed and recorded in accordance with Section 339 of the Criminal Code;

     Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

 

F2. On February 18, 2010 signed a total of 14 illegal OLG resolutions as a pseudo-chairwoman.

     The violations of § 122 GVG and Art. 101 GG are incurable, therefore it is punishable

  • § 339 StGB.

     She was thus titled as a lawbreaker and as a criminal; she knew that she was didn't

     as presiding judge on 18.2.2010 at she should not include the offender Wermeckes on the staff

      The 14 crimes have been completed and the sentence is up to 5 years in prison.

     All her decisions are sent to the plaintiff on the same day (February 25, 2010, see evidence),

     so the plaintiff fails to appeal; their speculation has failed.

 

F3. On February 22, 2010, she signed a total of 7 illegal OLG resolutions (with Mr. Bünten),

       although it should not (§ 47 ZPO, Art. 101 GG) or only theatrically by the Wermeckes /

      Ms. Grabensee / Dahm on February 16, 2010 was relieved of the allegation of bias, and that the

      Discharge to Mr. Bünten, which she issued on February 18, 2010, had no legal basis.

        Az 11 W 37/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

        Az 11 W 38/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan

        Az 11 W 39/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

        Az 11 W 40/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan (LG Az 2b o 194/07)

        Az 11 W 43/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

        Az 11 W 46/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Baan

        Az 11 W 59/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

      The 7 crimes are internalized u. accomplished; the sentence according to StGB is up to 5 years in prison.

 

F4. On March 31, 2010, a total of 14 illegal OLG decisions were signed as pseudo-chairwoman.

       Repeating the same offense by the pseudo-president brought her the additional title

        the multiple offender and convinced of the internalization of the crime; she ignored

        the laws in force so often violate them; Prosecutor agree?

        The violations of § 122 GVG and Art. 101 GG are incurable and punishable.

       The 14 crimes have been completed and recorded in accordance with Section 339 of the Criminal Code;

       Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

       All of your above 14 resolutions were delivered in one day (on April 7th, 2010).

       (see proof in the attachment).

 

F5. On May 12, 2010, she (Ms Jungclaus) had a total of 7 illegal OLG resolutions with Mr. Bünten and the

       others but the same offenders and with the same Az as on 22.2.2010), although they are not

       is likely (§ 47 ZPO, Art. 101 GG), or only theoretically by the Mr Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee /Mr.

        Dahm was relieved on February 16, 2010 of the allegation of bias, and that the discharge continued

        Mr. Bünten, who issued it on February 18, 2010, had no legal basis.

        She was convinced that she was abusing the right to enforce the injustice.

       The 7 offenses have been completed and recorded in accordance with Section 339 of the Criminal Code;

       Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

 

F6. On October 4, 2010, as pseudo-chairperson, she again signed 1 illegal OLG decision.

         OLG decision from 4.10.2010, Az 11 W 61/10 (LG-Az 2b o 145/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan

         / Wermeckes with "rejection of the application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

          as unfounded "; The 3 multiple OLG offenders (Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes)

         grant absolution to the other multiple LG-strategist (Stockschlaeder-Nöll); great justice!

         The OLG committee (Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes) was composed illegally, and

         thereby violation of the fundamental procedural rights (GVG § 122), the ZPO § 46 and ECHR Art. 6,

         or GG Art. 104, I, p. 2, Art. 103, Art. 101, Art. 23.

         That the rejected Stockschlaeder-Nöll on May 30, 2016 in a voluntary declaration

         has admitted its bias according to § 48 ZPO, a posteriori confirms the illegality of the

         OLG decision of October 4, 2010. According to the plaintiff, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is not

         relieved and she was excluded from all decisions in the process.

 

F7. She (Ms Jungclaus) was on December 29, 2010 (OLG-Az 11 W 77/10, LG-D´dorf 2b O 129/08) with the

       other offender (Müller) on the decision-making body, although she should not be able to decide on herself

      (§ 47 ZPO) (Decree signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus /Mr. Müller, with rejection of the exclusion

    request against the comedians Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller: The "Nemo Judex in causa sua" is to

     the accused Ms. Jungclaus obviously not known, or at least known and provocatively ignored.

     The offense has been completed and, according to the Criminal Code, a sentence of up to 5 years

     in prison is provided.

 

F8. She (Ms Jungclaus) sat on 9.2.2011, (OLG Az 11 W 87/10, LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 268/01) with the other offender

    (Müller) on the decision-making body, although she should not (Section 47 ZPO). Approved by Ms. Rotzheim

    /Mrs. Junglaus / Müller. Rejection of the rejection application from 17 December 2010 against Bünten /

    / Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller / Baan as inadmissible !!!

    The arbitrariness of the illegal body with the involvement of 2 criminals (Mrs. Junglaus / Mr Müller)

    that relieve themselves of the accusation of bias is unsurpassable.

    Ms. Jungclaus decides on her bias and grants her absolution.

    The offense is completed and the intended punishment is up to 5 years in prison.

 

F9. She sat on February 10, 2011 (OLG Az 11 W 97/10, LG-Az 2b O 177/10) with the other offender

    (Müller) on the decision-making body, although it should not (Section 47 ZPO). Decision signed Ms.

    Rotzheim /Mrs. Junglaus / Müller. The panel with 2 offenders rejects the application for partiality

     against OLG Judges Mrs. Jungclaus / Mrs. Baan / Wermeckes / Müller as inadmissible (!!!);

    The accused Mrs. Jungclaus again decides on her own actions and grants her and for all offenses

    committed by her, absolution !!!. The OLG's control function is included undermined.

   According to the plaintiff, the result (= decision) has no legal basis.

   The offense is completed and, according to the Criminal Code, the punishment is up to 5 years in prison

 

F10. She (Ms Jungclaus) sat on 9.3.2011, (OLG Az 11 W 87/10, LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 268/01) in the decision-

        making body, (Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius) although she should not be allowed to suffer

       (§ 47 ZPO).

       The hearing complaints were rejected as inadmissible, claiming that regardless of the

       procedure, RA constraint prevails in parallel PKH procedures. The legal complaint rejected

       and the costs determined according to § 97 ZPO. The victim must always pay the costs.

       The offense has been completed and, according to the Criminal Code, the sentence is likely to be

       up to 5 years in prison.

 

F11. She (Ms Jungclaus) sat on March 17, 2011, in the decision-making body, although according to § 47 ZPO

         she was not allowed. (OLG Az 11 W 7/11, LG 2b o 203/09, decision signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus /

         Koewius).

         Rejection of the application for bias against Dr. Hoffmann due to participation on March 23/24, 2009 for

          14 unlawful decisions by the conspiratorial LG committee led by Ms. Tigges.

         In the contested OLG decision, the reader does not find a word about the illegality of the

         LG committee of Mrs. Tigges and no word about violations of § 75 GVG or Art. 101 GG.

       The reader also recognizes the intention to damage in the contested cost decision, though

       the OLG committee still gives instructions on the PKH procedure

       to punish the plaintiff D'dorf with charges for a value in dispute of € 11,600.

       The law is thus misused to cover LG crimes and fictitious costs to the plaintiff hold up.

       Offenses completed and According to the Criminal Code, the sentence is up to 5 years in prison.

 

F12. On April 21, 2011 she sat on the decision-making body on OLG Az 11 W 7/11, LG Az 2b o 203/09,

       Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius), although it should not (Section 47 ZPO). It rejects the

       Hearings as inadmissible because the plaintiff allegedly would not have shown that the Senate with the

       Decision from March 17, 2011 would have violated the plaintiff's right to be heard.

       The right to be heard (and the decisions of the BVerfG) have been misused on the part of the offender;

     The offense is accomplished; The StGB also covers such cases.

 

F13. She was on the decision-making body on June 7, 2011, although she was not allowed to do so

     (Section 47 ZPO) (OLG Az 11 W 12/11, LG Az 2b o 271/01, decision signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus /

     Wermeckes)

    A total of 2 OLG multiple offenders (Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes) show their feelings of revenge.

    The accused Mrs. Jungclaus shows how she can circumvent the laws regarding PKH procedures,

     to save her job at the OLG-D´dorf.

     She claims that there is an RA requirement in PKH procedures, which fixes costs according to § 97 ZPO

    and the complaint value based on the value of the LG main thing and thus the faulty     Decision on costs

   charged to the plaintiff; The law is thus abused to cover offenses.

    Crimes completed and according to the Criminal Code the punishment is up to 5 years in prison.

    

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

 

Ms. Junglaus best shows the feelings of revenge after her "transfer", that is, during her time as LG-D´dorf

judge of the 7th Civil Senate on Az 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 118/99;

 

The illegal LG committee provides evidence in the resolution of July 6, 2016 on Az 2b o 118/99

signed Ms. Gundlach / Frank / Ms. Jungclaus, with which she submitted the partiality application dated

May 28, 2016 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll as unfounded.

 

She (Ms. Jungclaus) as chairwoman of the 7th civil chamber responsible according to GVP, which should

not deploy 2 members of the 2b chamber (Gundlach / Frank); especially since Ms. Gundlach was excluded

due to the process fraud of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01.

 

She (Ms. Jungclaus) ignores the voluntary self-declaration of bias on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll from

May 30, 2016 in accordance with Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and, in the resolution of

June 6, 2016, limits the request for bias in 6 lines (with the help of Mrs. Gundlach !!) reject;

 

How the distortion of the facts came about can be demonstrated on the basis of the arguments which

Stockschlaeder-Nöll mentions in their "Official statement dated 2.6.2016" Ms. Jungclaus also took over.

Only and exclusively initiated process fraudsters used for relief.

 

There, on June 2nd, 2016, Stockschlaeder-Nöll mentions that she would have dealt with the case

according to the law;

 

Ironically, on page 43 of the PKH application dated May 28, 2016 on Az 2b o 118/99, two legally binding

decisions published by NJW (OLG-Frankfurt and OLG-Hamm) were presented in order to clarify the

responsibility of the judges in the case of years-long blocked delivery of lawsuits to make and the grounds

for exclusion against Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

                    OLG Frankfurt, Az.1 U 25/2000; NJW-RR 1992, 919;

                    OLG Hamm, judgment of 22.03.2002, Az. 30 U 183/01; NJW-RR 2002, 1508

                   (Question of the liability of the judges in the case of a blocked delivery of a suit for years).

 

The manipulations and forgeries committed by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll are questioned by Ms. Jungclaus.

None of this is apparent, writes Ms. Jungclaus, who can only see the stars from her height.

 

The OLG decision of 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 2/13 without naming the judges (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger),

who had carried out serious litigation with manipulations of the legal texts (BGB aF) to come to a

conclusion, Stockschlaeder-Nöll is using the fact that the claims for damages on "July 31, 2006"

were supposedly time-barred.

 

After that, the OLG decision of April 27, 2016 on Az 18 W 2/13 signed by the proven fraudsters

Ms. Glaeser / Anger is named. So discharge from the OLG criminals (Ms. Glaeser /Mr Anger) for the multiple

offender Stockschlaeder-Nöll; confirmation of the above Facts on the part of the trial fraud and now LG judge

Mrs. Jungclaus (with the help of the member Ms. Gundlach introduced) of the 2b chamber.

 

So only and exclusively process fraudsters and criminals named in the official statement of June 2, 2016

on the discharge, and all clearly soaked with the spirit of judicial immunity.

 

Will the public prosecutor find it right or bring the accused to the judge?

 

For the time being, further evidence of fraudulent undermining of the law by Ms. Jungclaus is being

dispensed with.

 

  1. Case Ms. Tigges

 

G1. For almost 7 years the judiciary (LG-D´dorf and OLG-D´dorf) dealt with the cases where

        Ms. Tigges was involved. She had also been the subject of many public liability claims / PKH

        (2b o 7/11, 2b o 149/12, 2b o 151/12, 2b o 170/12, 2b o 196/12, 2b o 87/15, etc)

 

There are also two copiers on duty from the office of the Attorney General D'dorf (Ms. Strauch and

Ms. Stoy-Schnell) in their efforts to help the LG judges (Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Galle / Ms. Köstner-Plümpe

/ Ms. Tigges / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Vaupel, etc.).

 

Ms. Tigges is then "transferred" to LG-Cologne, while the other criminals in Düsseldorf Justice service

has remained to continue to undermine applicable laws from the INSIDE and that Undermining or

weakening public confidence in the judiciary.

  

G2. It was difficult to see that in the LG decision of April 28, 2008 on Az 2b o 84/08 signed Ms.

      Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Tigges, the last decision-maker and for the first time

      appearing (i.e. Ms. Tigges) belonged to the 2b civil chamber.

 

   With the above, the decision was the PKH applied for on 23 April 2008 for a declaratory action

   that Ms. Wolks-Falter was not a single judge in proceedings 2b o 118/99 and her decisions as a

     single judge are illegal and violate the rights of the plaintiff, dictated by Stockschlaeder-Nöll

     Result i.e. according to § 256 ZPO, is rejected as unfounded.

     As a beginner, Ms. Tigges complied with the dictation of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll. But she would have

     need to know from the files that after the unlawful decision has been taken, further would come:

     and the situation could be dangerous for her.

    But she was convinced of the cases of Mrs. Brückner-Hoffmann and Mrs. Strupp-Müller that

    she would also quickly be promoted to presiding judge. That is why she likes the crimes do.

    The resolution to circumvent the laws therefore proves itself and is therefore punishable

  • § 339 of the Criminal Code.

 

G3. The next LG decision of May 28, 2008 on Az 2b o 194/07 signed Engelkamp-Neeser / Köstner-

       Plümpe / Ms. Tigges was little surprised.

 

      The rejection of the applied PKH regarding the determination of the bias of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-

      Nöll, was based on § 256 ZPO, that § 256 supposedly only for the determination of a legal

      ratio would be applicable. (Illegal decision, because Engelkamp-Neeser was rejected,

      was not a presiding judge, and another chamber with the the chairman must decide

           (§ 75 GVG, Art. 101 GG, GVP of the year 2008).

 

       In addition, the reasoning was incorrect and the Stockschlaeder-Nöll misused it

      "Girls" to quickly get their relief from the allegation of bias to Az 2b o 194/07

        Ms. Tigges, as rapporteur, could have seen through it need that

        the thrown together LG committee is illegal.

 

      With clearance and Signing above The "girls" and especially Ms. Tigges

       made punishable under § 339 StGB. The proposed sentence is 1 to 5 years' imprisonment

 

G4. In addition, was in the immediate complaint filed on June 22, 2008 against the LG decision

          from May 28, 2008 signed Engelkamp-Neeser / Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Tigges to Az 2b o 194/07

          the Read the reasoning and compare it with the literature that the FSK according to § 256 ZPO

         is permissible and the document of September 6, 2007, the main request to establish the legal

         relationship contained between the state and the judge on the performance of judicial duties

         (after the Assessment of bias filed on December 18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll).

 

        In order to blind the reader and the local ASt, the girls deliberately mix the Az in the

        Non-remedial decision of July 24, 2008 on Az 2b o 118/99 signed Engelkamp-Neeser / Köstner-

       Plümpe / Ms. Tigges. The trick was that they had the Az 2b o 118/99 with the current Az 2b o 194/07

        confused and mixed the topic.

 

G5.

 

     NB: On July 24, 2008, the "decree" of the 2b civil chamber on Az 2b o 118/99 signed Engelkamp-

        Neeser sent to the AG-Essen with suggestion of a care procedure against the plaintiff, with

       on the first page of the order, a list of 14 processes, pending at the 2b chamber

       since 1999; she (Engelkamp-Neeser) refers to § 55 ZPO and § 24 EGBGB, and takes over

       literally a whole passage from the letter of the dismissed RA Pl. to Az 2b o 29/08.

       She (Engelkamp-Neeser) uses 2 references to §§ EGBGB regarding "foreigners".

        EU law is unimportant for Engelkamp-Neeser.

     

      With letter from ASt from July 30, 2008 on Az 2b o 118/99 is reference to the non-remedial decision

      from 24.7.2008 signed Engelkamp-Neeser/Köstner-Plümpe/Tigges taken and informed the girls

      that the Az 118/99 should be wrong and the correct 2b o 194/07. In addition, copy of the

      LG decision from April 23, 2008, with which the application for bias against Engelkamp-Neeser

       was rejected as unfounded. The non-remedy decision of July 24, 2008 is therefore

        declared ineffective and attacked with a later letter in Aug. 2008!

 

G6. On July 17, 2008 the LG decision on Az 2b o 77/08 (illegal 273 administrative acts)

      signed Galle / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt. The decision is contested (file allegedly disappeared)

 

G7. On August 7, 2008, the LG decision on Az 2b o 77/08 concerning the illegality of 273

      Administrative files / tax assessments of the FA-Mettmann for the years up to 1992 signed

     Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Tigges / Mr. Gale; (File allegedly disappeared); the commuting of Ms. Tigges

     from the 2b civil chamber to the then 14d civil chamber of Mr. Galle, the assumption proves that

     Ms. Tigges the 2b civil chamber stepped in only as a voluntary reinforcement. It is helpful for the

     reader why the chairman comes last; he wanted to show that the decision 7.8.2008 comes from him.

     The decision of August 7, 2008 on August 2, 2008 to 2b o 77/08 goes with (NAB =)

      Non-remedial decision dated 18.12.2008 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser / Tigges

      to the 18th Senate (Malsch & Co); Ms. Tigges does the instruction and orders the OLG

      Result on the immediate complaint against LG decision that LG is allegedly not responsible

      to decide on the illegality of tax assessments; The "LG order" (regarding LG Az 2b o 77/08,

     the illegal tax assessments) is from the 18th Senate Mr Malsch /Mr Stobbe /Mr Haarmann on

       March 4, 2009 on OLG decision on Az 18 W 7/09 executed.

       The immediate complaint against the LG decision of August 7, 2008 has been rejected.

 

 G8. All months of August / September / October / November / December In 2008 the plaintiff continuously

       provided evidence on Az 2b o 268/01 about the terror of the FA-Mettmann, about the missing payments,

       about the secret account of the FA where the sacked amounts were stored, does research and

       in November 2008 at the AG-Essen determined the "secret requests and emails" of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-

       Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser to Judge Seelmann, with which she ordered a "supervisor with consent

       reservation " etc. The above two women are on December 16, 2008 because of bias rejected and named

    due to non-compliance with the EuGVVO regulations in all proceedings AG-Essen occupied with exclusion

     request.

 

 G9. On February 3, 2009 the illegal LG committee tried the plaintiff with a counter strike to punish;

       issues a decision on the value in dispute relating to Az 2b o 71/08 signed Stockschlaeder- Nöll /

      Engelkamp-Neeser / Ms. Tigges; the amount in dispute is set at EUR 500 in accordance with

         Section 63 (1) GKG set.

       According to the decision to settle the value in dispute, the court fees will also be charged

       against the Plaintiff arrested; Ms. Tigges also carries out process fraud, which she also likes to do.

       the process fraud is noticeable; the plaintiff must be responsible for the legal fraud of women

      successfully threatens and defends itself.

      Because with the PKH procedure, such as Az 2b o 71/08, according to the ZPO no dispute

      take a decision. Thus, Ms. Tigges made herself punishable according to § 339 StGB, with a penalty

       up to 1 year imprisonment.

 

G10. By letter from the court signed Ms. Tigges of February 13, 2009, the plaintiff received the

      "official Statement " by Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser from 9.2.2009 and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from

      11.2.2009 on Az 2b o 172/08 and Az 2b o 170/08; Below is the text by Stockschlaeder-Nöll

      zu 2b o 170/08 (11.2.2009).

     "In the above PKH proceedings, the ASt requests that the “legal relationship to exercise the

         Judge's office “of the judge at LG-Düsseldorf Schumacher in the legal dispute 2b o 271/01 due to

         alleged legal violations by him based official liability lawsuit and were that the

        legal relationship of Mrs. Schuster Judge at LG does not allow her "lack of LG qualification"

       have to sign decisions in litigation 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 146/03 and 2b o 250/03. He

        has now filed for bias against me and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser Judge at LG. I have dealt

       with this chamber matter as rapporteur according to the law, without regard to the

       Person of ASt. This also applies to the fact that a decision about the PKH Application currently

     in view of the suggestion of the chamber to initiate a care procedure with the AG-Essen is omitted.

     The suggestion to the guardianship court was made with regard to the ex officio obligation

     to check the existence of the process requirements. Due to the behaviour of the ASt (including overloading

      of the court with applications and letters incomprehensible and insulting, sometimes criminal content)

        there were serious doubts about the process capability of the ASt. In this respect, the content is available

                 dated July 24, 2008 (2b o 118/99) and the following email.

 

 NB: "The process fraud is referred to as " plaintiff's duty of care ", just like the fraud

          by the OLG judges Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner in the PKH

         Decision of August 30, 2017 and in the judgment of October 18, 2017 on OLG Az 18 U 69/16 as

         " In favour of the plaintiff ". The care of the LG / OLG judges is heartbreaking.

 

G11. After commenting on the "official statement", Ms. Tigges takes on the task the rejected

          women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser) from the charge of Relieve bias; with an illegal

       LG body, formed with the girls of the 14d chamber of Mr. Galle (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Hoffmann / Ms.        

         Schmidt) i.e. with the smuggled in Ms. Dr. Hoffmann of the 2b chamber, issues the illegal body

       on March 23/24, 2009, 14 decisions for the lawbreakers (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser)

       this has been unlawful Committee (violations of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG) only wrote positive i.e.

         she would not be biased; The requests for partiality were rejected as unfounded 14 times.

         For the 14 litigation committed on March 23/24, 2009, the committee and in particular

         the pseudo-chairwoman "Ms. Tigges qualified as a criminal" and the punishment for her 14th

         Legal penalties are more than 1 year to 5 years in prison according to the Criminal Code.

 

G11. The decision of the AG-Essen on Az 74 XVII Sa 261 signed Mr. Winterpacht is issued on March 24, 2009;

        "The demand of a supervisor is rejected" The LG law breakers (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

        Engelkamp-Neeser) are disappointed and upset. But their efforts continue.

 

G12. The on 9./10./11./12. Apr. 2009 14 immediate complaints will all be handled on the part

          Ms. Tigges as unfounded, not remedied on April 15, 2009 and May 20, 2009 and with NAB

         sent to the Court of appeal (11th Senate). The in the (NAB =) non-remedial decision from May 20, 2009

         signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann's "LG order" of the OLG result is clear:

          "The complaint does not give rise to any of the statements in the attack

            the contested decision "(which has been adopted by the OLG 11th Senate).

 

G13. Now Ms. Tigges obviously likes the role of the pseudo-chairwoman, which explains why

         she has no hesitation in executing the "new process fraud" on June 3, 2009 on Az 2b o 45/09;

         With the illegal body Ms. Tigges / Mr Noltze / Ms. Vaupel the biased application against

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll is rejected as unfounded.

        The secret requests of the rejected to the AG-Essen would allegedly be justified.

        No word can be read in the decision of the applicable EuGVVO Art. 1, and EGBGB Art. 7

        The committee, and in particular, has approved the process fraud committed on 3.6.2009

        the pseudo-chairwoman "Ms. Tigges qualified as a criminal" and the punishment for her

        According to the German Criminal Code, right-wing bending is more than 1 to 5 years in prison.

 

      The continuation in the years 2009/2010/2011 at the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate results from the

       Criminal charges against Ms. Jungclaus / against Ms. Grabensee / against Bünten / against Wermeckes /

       against Ms. Baan described in the previous pages or in the criminal charges from 10/10/2010

       Az 40 JS 7240/10 and in the criminal complaint 19.9.2019 Az 141 Js 2483/19.

 

  1. Fall Ms. Baan and Mr. Wermeckes,

         

  H1. Ms. Baan appears on September 23, 2009 and signs 6 resolutions as under B2

             shown. It imitates the writing style of the superman (Bünten) and in the next action

 

 H2. on February 18, 2010 under the leadership of Ms. Jungclaus, enthusiastic about the process fraud

             (where they show can do what she is capable of), Ms. Baan signs the following 10 resolutions

              11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

              11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

             11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

              11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/09) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

 

H3. On February 22, 2010, she slides one place behind Ms. Jungclaus and as the author of 6 OLG

        D'dorf decides that Ms. Baan signs the following with the other fraudsters:

                       11 W 38/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                     11 W 40/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                       11 W 42/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

                       11 W 44/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

                       11 W 46/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                       11 W 54/09 (LG 2b o 118/99) signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

 

       In all of the above Decisions are as follows:

      "The determination of the value in dispute for the complaint procedure remains. The value in dispute

        in Matters of bias correspond to the value of the main thing u. does not depend on the costs

        the legal aid procedure. The reason for this is that the ace with the biased ultimately wanted

        the main matter to be decided by other judges.

        The cost decision regarding the hearing complaint follows from § 97 ZPO, for the rest is one

          Cost decision not prompted “ So the laws of superman override !!

 

H4. On March 31, 2010 the hug of dear Mrs. Baan on the part of the fraudster Mrs. Jungclaus

       meant that she had to sign another 10 illegal decisions.

    > OLG decision on 11 W 37/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

   > OLG decision on 11 W 38/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as

                                                                                                                                                                               inadmissible

   > OLG decision on 11 W 39/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

 > OLG decision to 11 W 40/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as

                                                                                                                                                                              inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 42/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 43/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Müller with rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 44/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 46/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision on 11 W 54/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision on 11 W 59/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

 

H5. On May 12, 2010, Bünten again bowed to the request of the main litigant and performed

        her signature under the following 6 resolutions:

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 38/09, signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 154/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 40/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 194/07)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 42/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 172/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 44/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 145/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 46/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 29/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 54/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 118/99)

 

      with rejection of the counter ideas March 9/15, 2010 against the OLG decision from February 22, 2010

       each accomplice being careful that their rank occurs accordingly.

 

H6. Already on October 4, 2010 in decision on 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08) signed Jungclaus/Ms. Baan/

       Wermeckes.

        Ms. Baan has overtaken the Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes); the immediate complaint against LG

        Decision June 24, 2010 / August 5, 2010 against the rejection of the partiality application against

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll is from the illegal body of the pseudo-chairwoman Jungclaus (violations of Art.

       101 GG, against § 122 GVG) rejected as unfounded; Complaint costs after Value in dispute of the main

     proceedings; The ASt bears the costs. Punishment for anyone over 1 year in prison.

 

H7. The plaintiff reacts on October 23, 2010 with a request for bias against Mr Wermeckes / Ms Jungclaus /

       Mr Müller / Ms. Baan to the well-known Az 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08), 11 W 55/10, 11 W 77/10,

       11 W 79/10, 11 W 81/10, 11 W 82/10, 11 W 83/10 due to legal injuries in 29 cases

 

H8. On December 17, 2010, an application for bias against Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller u.

      Dr. Bünten on Az 11 W 87/10 (LG 2b o 268/01) with reference and reference to the application for partiality

      from 10/23/2010 to 11 W 61/10 and inclusion of the hearing complaints from 18.10.2010 for Az 11 W 61/10

 

H9. Ms. Baan was the subject of a first official liability lawsuit / PKH on December 25, 2010 (2b o 6/11)

           because of process fraud of the well-known litigious Dr. Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

            Müller / Wermeckes in 85 cases (Az 11 W 36/09 to 11 W 59/09 from 23.9.2009 to 12.5.2010

            The PKH requested by the LG multiple offender Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Jan 18, 2011 rejected for

         "insufficient prospect of success". LG decision signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Keiser/Ms.

           Mossbrucker

 

H10. On Dec. 29, 2010 i.e. only 12 calendar days after submission of the partiality application

         an illegitimate OLG committee (Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller) decides with two

         judges excluded due to § 47 ZPO (Ms. Jungclaus / Müller) and rejects this Application

          for exclusion against dear Ms. Baan, as well as against Ms. Jungclaus/Mr Wermeckes /Mr Müller

          for Az 11 W 77/10 (LG 2b o 129/08) and Az 11 W 54/10 (LG 2b o 142/08) as inadmissible;

         As usual, the ASt bears costs according to the complaint value; The fraudsters give themselves

         itself absolution and condemn the plaintiff. Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

annotation

 

          Throughout the whole of 2011/2012/2013/2014, the plaintiff fought against the arbitrariness

          of the Decisions of Ms. Baan, which jumps from May 11th to the 18th Senate around May 2012

          and as rapporteur 2-digit exclusion requests in the various proceedings (Az)

          rejected as "inadmissible"; sometimes for the OLG committee the bias

          establish as unsubstantiated, or even as offensive content. The illegality of the

          displayed LG bodies are always covered; Applicable laws are not mentioned.

          The judges do not like protests where their crimes are focused.

         Therefore in the following pages only the date and Az of the contested OLG decisions

         with the LG-Az and the names of the key committee members in brackets.

          Now and then only short comments to clarify the crime of the committees.

 

H11. On January 28, 2011 the OLG decision on Az 11 W 94/10 (LG 2b o 45/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Fr.

           Baan / Müller;

         Tenor: The immediate complaints from 26.9.2010 against LG decision 9.9.2010 and from November 14th,

       2010 against LG decision of November 8th, 2010 (signed Ms. Keizer/Ms. Dr. Schumacher/Ms.

           Moosbrucker) are rejected as unfounded; the ASt bears the costs.

          Complaint value € 6,000;                That the LG committee is illegally formed and none Presiding

          judge (violations of Art. 101 GG and § 75 GVG), will Ms. Baan and accomplice Müller kept silent.

         Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

H12. The OLG decision is issued on January 31, 2011. Az 11 W 55/10 (LG 2b o 203/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim /

            / Ms Baan /Mr Müller; Rejection of the application for bias 23.10.2010 against Ms. Baan /

             Müller / Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus as inadmissible (and abusive);

             the ASt bears the costs. Complaint value € 11,600.

 

   Comments:

 

           PKH-proceedings do not include a value in dispute; Order signed by two criminals; For Baan there

               Absolution to itself. Here, the value in dispute is only named to punish the plaintiff (revenge)

 

H13. The OLG decision is issued on January 31, 2011. Az 11 W 79/10 (LG 2b o 121/10 separated from

          2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller;

         "Rejection of the application for bias October 23, 2010 against Ms. Baan / Müller / Wermeckes / Ms.

         Jungclaus as inadmissible;  the ASt bears the costs. Complaint value 135,000 euros."

          According to the settled case law of the Senate (OLGR 1994, 127 = NJW-RR 1994, 1086) the value

         of the main thing (see BGH 1968, 796).

         In both of the above Resolutions of January 31, 2011 give the offenders (Mrs. Baan / Müller)

         absolution to theirself and to the accomplices. After that, the costs are deferred to the ASt and

         the Written illegal value in a PKH procedure to punish the plaintiff again

           Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H14: The OLG decision is issued on 9.2.2011. for Az 11 W 87/10 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed Ms. Rotzheim / Fr.

            Mrs. Junglaus / Müller (rejection of the rejection application from December 17th, 2010 against

           Bünten /Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller / Ms. Baan as inadmissible; Tenor:

           "Rejection of the immediate complaint of October 13, 2010 against the LG decision of September

           23, 2010 as inadmissible. "Because the rejection request of December 16, 2008 against Stockschlaeder-

            Nöll because of inadmissible secret applications to the AG-Essen for a supervisor with reservation of

            consent is aimed at reaching the complaint on the part of the fraudsters and multiple Criminal,

            Ms. Jungclaus / Müller, declared "inadmissible".

            Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H15. The OLG decision is issued on April 13, 2011. Az 11 W 94/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius

         (LG 2b o 45/09); Tenor: hearing complaint of 9.2.11 against OLG decision from 28.1.11 will be returned

         pointed. There is no violation of legal hearing. A violation of the plot prohibition according to § 47 ZPO is

       not recognizable. The application for bias to 11 W 87/10 is right abusive u. with final decision of 9.2.2011

       (11W 87/10) determined to be inadmissible.

            The Bf repeats incorrect legal views. Legal complaint is rightly not allowed

            Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H16. On April 18, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08) Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

          Wermeckes; Tenor: Complaints rejected as inadmissible. Two offenders (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes)

           claim the hearing complaints would be inadmissible, although they should not be allowed to decide.

           The offenders discuss the result beforehand. Then the unlawful decision is made.

 

H17. On May 12, 2011 the OLG-D´dorf decision on Az 11 W 61/10 (LG 2b o 145/08) signed Ms Rotzheim

         / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes; "The hearing complaint from October 18, 2010, supplemented

         October 23, 2010  against the OLG decision of October 4, 2010 is rejected as inadmissible

       (it is alleged not in the legal form)." The applicant bears the costs of the hearing complaint.

          The offenders thus cover their offense and punish the plaintiff.

         For the crimes committed, the Criminal Code provided for a penalty of more than 1 year to 5 years

 

H18. On May 16, 2011, the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 83/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

          Wurmeckes (2b o 172/08); There seems to be a particular interest in connecting the two offenders

           here. The intention of the duo (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes) to hide the crimes of the FA-Mettmann

           makes the two punishable with more than 1 year in prison according to the Criminal Code

 

H19. On August 12, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. for Az 11 W 12/11 (regarding LG 2b o 271/01 Galle / Ms.

            Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser) signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius; The request for

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

              has gone. The application for bias against Wermeckes is unfounded (!!!).

              Bias Stockschlaeder-Nöll shows no reason for rejection (!)

             What the criminal (Ms. Baan) does not want to see, she declares it as "not visible".

             Ms. Baan still needs Mr. Wermeckes for the next illegal decisions

          Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H20. The OLG decision is issued on September 5, 2011. Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Rotzheim /

        Ms. Baan / Koewius.

         The application for bias against Ms. Baan is considered inadmissible (and abusive) rejected;

      The hearing complaint dated 19.8.2011 pursuant to OLG decision from 12.8.2011 (11 W 12/11) will be

       called rejected unfounded. The costs of the hearing complaint are borne by the ASt

       No wonder that everything the ASt requests in immediate complaints is rejected as unfounded

      becomes. Ms. Baan gives absolution to herself again. Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

H21. On November 28, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 12/11 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

                    Wermeckes (LG-2b o 271/01); The complaint of 19 June 2011 against the decision of the Senate

                    dated 7.6.2011 is rejected (as unfounded).

                    The counter ideas of ASt from 18.10.2011 against the decision of the Senate of September 5, 2011

                   is rejected.  The Bf must bear the costs of the complaint. ”

                   The fraudsters (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes) suspect that the time of capping them

                   Offenses soon end; and take advantage of the time to start the new year

                   to bring in (Koewius) in their line (to punish the plaintiff)

 

H22. The OLG decision will be issued on 20.12.2011. Az 11 W 81/10 (LG 2b o 170/08) signed Ms. Rotzheim /

          Wermeckes / Koewius; Application for bias against Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Baan / Müller

          rejected as inadmissible; Allegedly abusive with querulative content.

          The application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll or the immediate complaint against

          LG decision from 9.9.10 is rejected as unfounded

          The Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes) describes the complaints against the fraud of the

          Putsch clubs of the 11th Senate as "querulous content"; he tries to kill the ASt close.

         The offender Wermeckes exonerates the other members of the putsch club.

        Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Wermeckes & Co ??

 

H23. On 21 December 2011, the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 82/11 from Ms. Rotzheim / Wermeckes /

          Koewius (regarding LG 2b o 143/08 Brückner-Hoffmann as single judge). The application for bias

          against Ms. Baan / Wermeckes / Müller is rejected as "inadmissible"; The immediate complaint dated

          24.9.2010 against the LG decision from 9.9.2010 with which the application for bias against Ms.

           Hoffmann has been rejected will also be rejected. Cost decision according to § 97 ZPO.

           Wermeckes offender exonerates the other members of the 11th Senate coup club.

           The almost nervously sick Wermeckes knows that he cannot stay at the OLG-D´dorf

            and grants ABSOLUTION to himself and to the other accomplices.

           Undermining the inside of the law is also punishable under the Criminal Code.

 

H24. The OLG decision is issued on 29.2.2012. signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius 11 W 83/10

       (Az 2b o 172/08; PKH from August 15, 2008). The rejected Mrs. Baan gives absolution to herself

         and declares the application for partiality as "inadmissible". Mr. Müller left the Senate,

         Ms. Jungclaus as a representative enjoys legal protection. Otherwise no cost decision. Here

         noticeable the lack of a cost decision

           (in the past even according to the amount in dispute of the main thing)

 

H25. On 16 May 2012, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 33/12 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch/Weith/Ms. Baan;

           Ms. Baan finds a pleasant position at the 18th Senate. She collects the complaints she has

           had rejected while working for the 11th Senate. The new decision has the following

     Tenor: "The immediate complaint of April 5, 2012 against LG decision. from 22.3.2012 the

                 the reasons for the contested decision and the decision not to remedy the situation

                 rejected on March 14, 2012. The complaint does not justify a different one Decision:

                 Cost decision will not be initiated § 127 (4) ZPO"

                A look at the LG decision 22.3.2012 and in the NAB from 14.3.2012 convinced:

                This is exactly what the 2b civil chamber "ordered" and Ms. Baan as rapporteur

                took it literally. The chamber was supposedly manned by regulations!

 

H26. The OLG decision is issued on 16.5.12. Az 18 W 38/12 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

          " immediate complaint from April 29, 2012 against LG decision from April 12, 2012 will becomes,

           the applicable Grounds for the contested decision and the decision not to remedy it of 2.5.2012

            rejected. The complaint does not justify a different decision. The chamber was said to be staffed

           according to regulations"; although they violate § 75 GVG.

           the whole reason with 4.5 lines: The annual statistics are thus embellished.

          Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Malsch / Ms. Baan ??

 

H27. On July 9, 2012: OLG decision 18 W 4/12 (2b o 170/08 due to Schumacher) signed Malsch/Weith/

                      Ms. Baan

          The complaint from 30.3.12 against OLG decision from 19.3.12 (Malsch / Stobbe / Haarmann) as

          inadmissible (according to § 567 (1) ZPO and as inadmissible (according to § 567 (2) ZPO because

         of the Value in dispute less than € 200) rejected; The new trick: value in dispute less than € 200

          Disputed value in a PKH procedure again to have the thing off the table.

 

H28. On July 10, 2012, the OLG decision is issued. 18 W 37/12 (2b o 265/11) signed Malsch/Weith/Haarmann

            Tenor:

            "Will the immediate complaint of March 24, 2012 against the LG decision of March 15, 2012

              for the relevant reasons of the contested decision and the non-remedy decision of 7.5.12 rejected.

             No cost decision!

             Baan's ultra-short-brief-justification for rejecting the immediate complaint finds imitators

 

H29. The OLG decision is issued on July 11, 2012. from 11.7.12 Az 18 W 89/11 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed

             Malsch /Weith / Ms. Baan, with 2 heavily charged judges Malsch + Baan with incorrect entry

               of LG 18 U 223/11 instead of LG-2b o 268/01: Tenor of the OLB decision:

                "Will the ASt immediate complaint of 11/14/11 (p. 1485 ff GA) against the

                 PKH denying decision of the LG-D´dorf from 12.10.11 (p. 1467 ff GA) (2b o 268/01)

                 rejected. The admissible complaint of the ASt remains unsuccessful in the matter.

                The intended legal action does not offer a sufficient prospect of success, § 114 ZPO.

                The LG has, with appropriate justification, which the Senate joins, the

                No prospect of success for the individual pending claims. The complaint

                argument of 14.11.11 justifies how the LG in the NAB of 23.11.11 (GA Bl. 1527 f)

                did not make a different decision. Also the further letter from

                7.12.11 that essentially only with the "disappearance application for bias"

               of November 12, 2002, is not suitable to justify a prospect of success.

               The fraudster (Ms. Baan) has intentionally not written that the procedure

               2b o 268/01 ended with the fraud that the "claims were allegedly barred".

 

H30. The OLG decision is issued on 26.9.2012, for Az 18 W 89/11 (LG-2b o 268/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

              Ms. Baan. Tenor:

            " Are the letters from 23.7.12 hearing complaint against the Senate decision

             11.7.12, the application for admission of the legal complaint and the application for bias

              against Ms. Judge at OLG-Baan rejected as inadmissible"

             Another motion for bias against Fr Baan by the same Ms. Baan was rejected.

             she grants absolution to herself and that is punishable according to § 339 StGB

 

H31. On Sept. 27, 2012, the ASt requests a statement from Ms. Baan

         to the OLG-D´dorf Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12, 18 W 38/12 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01).

         Ms. Baan has always refused to request a business statement.

 

H32. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed an official liability action / PKH, Az 2b o 170/12 against

         NRW the legal bends of the LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser / Köstner- Plümpe

         / Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Hoffmann / Mr. Noltze on Az 2b o 194/07

            and on the part of the OLG judges of the 11th Senate Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

             Wermeckes / Dahm / Ms. Grabensee zu OLG-Az 11 W 40/09 (LG-Az 2b o 194/07).

           The PKH application has been submitted by an illegal LG body (Ms. Brecht / Ms. Jürging / Ms.

          Schumacher, violations of § 75 GG and Art. 101 GG) were rejected

            does the public prosecutor understand the game of LG / OLG criminals?

                     

H33. Again on October 16, 2012, the plaintiff sends a 3rd reminder to OLG-18. Senate because of the

          Ms. Baan's official opinion on the Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12 and 18 W 38/12

 

H34. On October 30, 2012, the appointed RA sent a reminder to OLG-Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12,

          18 W 38/12 for a statement by Ms. Baan on the application for bias in above mentioned Az,

          because of the 51 legal inflections listed.

 

H35. On October 31, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 89/11 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

         Ms. Baan; Tenor:

        "The complaint of 7/10/12 against OLG decision 26.9.12 is rejected as" inadmissible "".

 

H36. On November 5, 2012 the ASt sends a reminder to Az OLG-Az 18 W 5/11 and Az 18 W 39/12

         (LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 6/11) for an immediate decision on the immediate complaints and

         repeated: Ms. Baan is due to be biased from all complaint procedures at the 18th Senate

                             locked out. Ms. Baan collects the memories to clean her A + C.

 

H37. On November 7, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/12) signed Malsch / Haarmann /

           Ms. Baan. Tenor of the OLG decision

           "The counter notification (= GGD) of July 16, 2012 against OLG decision. December 9, 2012 is rejected

            The rejection request against OLG judge Baan is rejected as inadmissible".

            Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate

           and rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She again awards "absolution" to herself

 

H38. On November 12, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 33/12 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

             Baan; Tenor:

             The hearing complaint dated 26 May 12 against the OLG decision of 16 May 12 is considered

              "inadmissible"discarded. The exclusion request against Ms. Baan is rejected as inadmissible.

             Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate

             and rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She gives "absolution" to herself again.

 

H39. On November 12, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

            Baan; Tenor:

            The hearing complaint dated May 27, 2012 against the OLG decision of May 16, 2012 is considered

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

           Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate and

              rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She again awards "absolution" to herself

       

H40. On November 14, 2012, the As filed a hearing against Az 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/08)

                         Rejection of the application for bias against the offender Ms. Baan

 

H41. On November 15, 2012, the ASt "counter notification" (= GGD) that the OLG decision from

                     November 5, 2012 Az 18 W 89/11 signed by the offender is improper;

                     Ms. Baan is and remains excluded because of the crimes committed in the sense of § 339 StGB

 

H42. On November 21, 2012, the ASt filed a complaint against inaction and an application for partiality

                     Ms. Baan on OLG Az 18 W 8/11 (LG Az 2b o 7/11, lawsuit / PKH of 29.12.2010)

 

H43. On November 24, 2012, another application to exclude Ms. Baan for legal violations

                       within the meaning of § 339 StGB to 18 W 86/10 (LG Az 2b o 145/08).

  

H44. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB to OLG-Az 18 W 76/12 (LG-2b o 170/12 due to legal injuries to Az 2b o 194/07)

 

H45. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

         meaning of § 339StGB zu OLG-Az 18 W 83/12 (LG-2b o 149/12 due to legal defenses to Az 2b o 154/08)

 

H46. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB OLG-Az 18 W 84/12 (LG-2b o 151/12 due to legal injuries to Az 2b o 145/08)

 

H47. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB OLG-Az 18 W (LG-2b o 271/01 due to legal violations to Az 2b o 271/01)

 

H48. On January 13, 2013, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the meaning

           of § 339StGB zu OLG Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01; PKH from July 16, 2012; immediately

 

H49. On January 15, 2013, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the meaning

         of § 339StGB zu OLG Az 18 W 89/12 (LG-2b o 146/12; PKH from 22nd Aug. 12; immediately - from

         13.11.2012)

 

H50. On January 16, 2013, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 89/12 (LG 2b o 146/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

           Ms. Baan; Tenor:

                        The immediate complaint is inadmissible because it is not signed.

                        The request for bias against Baan is rejected as "inadmissible".

 

H51. On January 16, 2013, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 83/12 (LG 2b o 149/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

         Ms. Baan; Tenor:

                "For the relevant reasons, the contested LG-Decision and the NAB v 14.11.12 and the opinion of the

                  General attorney from 10/10/12and rejected as unfounded on 12/14/12.

                  The brief does not justify a different decision.

                  According to § 72 ZPO, the Senate is not prevented from making a decision regarding

                 of Section 41 No. 1 ZPO if - as in the case of a dispute - the allegation of legal evasion without

                  substantial and understandable justification.

                  Therefore, the application for bias against Baan is based on the allegation of legal infraction

                        rejected as "inadmissible".

 

       Comments:

                               in the 18th Senate, the multiple offender decides on her own crimes

                               and she gives herself absolution.

 

H52. On January 23, 2013, the ASt filed an application for bias against Ms. Baan for legal violations

            i.S.d. § 339 StGB to Az 18 W 2/13 with application for involvement, etc. the files of LG-2b o

            118/99 u. OLG-D´dorf Az 1 Ws 80/11 and many more

 

H53. On March 11, 13 the OLG decision Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12) signed Malsch/Weith/Baan;

Tenor: "The immediate complaint of January 20, 2013 against LG decision of December 20, 2012 due to the

               relevant explanations of the LG decision from 20.12.12 and the NAB from 1/30/13 as rejected

              without reason;

              The petition for bias directed against Ms. Baan is already being used several times

              Plaintiffs given reasons (most recently 18 W 83/12 and 89/12) rejected as inadmissible.

 

       Comments:

                           in the 18th Senate, the multiple offender decides on her own crimes

                                and she gives herself absolution.

 

H54. The OLG decision is issued on 11 March 13. Az 18 W 89/12 (2b o 146/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

          Ms. Baan; Tenor:

       "The hearing complaints of the ASt of January 27, 2013 against the decision of the Senate of 18.1.13

        will rejected "

 

H55. With Decree by Mr. MALSCH on Az 2b o 271/01 dated April 17th, 2013 the ASt will be informed

         that; The files of proceedings 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 268/01 are to be consulted for information

 

          Comments:

                                 Mr. Malsch's new trial fraud is already in preparation

                                                

H56. On Apr. 18, 2013 Ms. Baan sent a message to Az 18 W 1/13 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) that she

              has requested files 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 for information from the LG

 

     Comments:

 

                       The new trial fraud of the 18th Senate on Az 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 118/99

                       is already in preparation

         

H57. The OLG decision is issued on April 23, 2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (LG 2b o 196/12) Malsch/Weith/Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: Hearings from from 28.3.13 against OLG decision 11.3.13 rejected;

        "The ace does not show that this decision entitles him to be heard

        has been injured. The letter of March 28, 2013 does not contain a new, substantial lecture "

 

H58. By writing the ASt to the OLG-18 W 1/13 dated Apr. 24, 2013, the access to Ms. Baan is given

           to the Files 2b o 271/01 and 118/99 denied; she is "Persona non grata"

                           

       With letter from ASt from 17.5.2013 an application for bias against Ms. Baan;

      The exclusion request is due to the offenses i.S.d. § 339 StGB to OLG Az 18 W 44/13

       (LG-Az 2b o 71/08, repeal of the SWFSB) justified.

 

     With letter from ASt from 17.5.2013 an application for bias against Ms. Baan;

      Exclusion request with the offenses in the sense of Section 339 of the Criminal Code committed

       to OLG Az 18 W 45/13 (LG-Az 2b o 67/08, repeal of the SWFSB) justified.

 

H59. The OLG decision is issued on 7 November 2013. Az 18 W 45/13 (LG-2b o 67/08) signed

         Malsch/Weith/ Ms. Baan

         Tenor: The immediate complaint dated 2.5.13 against LG decision. from 23.4.13 (2b o 67/08) is returned

                    The plaintiff confuses the conditions of the pending, which lead to due date of the court fees leads,

                   with the requirements of pending dependency.

 

H60. The OLG decision is issued on 7 November 2013. for Az 18 W 37/12 (2b o 265/11)

             signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

            Tenor: Hearings from from 17.7.12 against OLG decision from 10.07.12 rejected; requirements

                of § 574 ZPO does not exist; Right to be heard not violated.

  

H61. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 48/12 (LG 2b o 238/11)

             Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: "The immediate complaint of the LGG decision of March 16, 2012, which refuses to accept the PKH

                  rejected; The active judge maintains the ASt with honorary and insulting Consider comes, lack of

                  professional competence and alleged Accuse of violations of the law, accuse them of conspiracies,

                 and to be accused of criminal behaviour. Of these are in the present case around twenty judges from

                 the above Courts affected without the ace even in would substantiate its polemic attacks in a case.

                 Therefore, he can be sued for his official liability action on the grounds of the contested LG decision

                 and the NAB decision no PKH approved due to lack of prospect of success will. The Senate in its line-

               up - as happened here - can decide even though the ace also has some members of that

             senate legal and partisan accuses.

               Tangible and the ASt replaces verifiable facts with polemical ones Attacks that are not suitable after

               the judge's exclusion to justify §§ 41 or 42 ZPO. Because the ace involved in every new procedure

               Judges of the previous proceedings for years with criminal Otherwise accusations and requests for bias

               would be dealt with someday came, to which no judge of the LG and / or OLG D'dorf is still in ASt

               procedures may decide.

               Düsseldorf the 18.11.2013; 18th Civil Senate

 

   Comments: The protesting OLG judge Malsch + Ms. Baan shall be their fraud briefly mentioned here

        

             > Ms. Baan was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate (2009-2012)

               > to Az 2b o 271/01 (OLG decision March 11, 2008 to Az 18 W 46/07 signed Malsch / Haarmann /

                   Ms. Anderegg (LG 2b o 271/01; crime Strupp-Müller + Engelkamp-Neeser "COVERED")

               > OLG decision from July 10, 2008 to 18 W 39/06 signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms Anderegg;

                  on the illegality of the LG committee (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt,

                  Violations of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG in the above OLG decision) nothing written;

                  So violations "COVERED". The plaintiff may not complain about the LG / OLG violations !!

             > Mr. Malsch's decisions made the "disappearance of the file on Az 2b o 77/08" possible

 

H62. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 82/12 (LG 2b o 148/12)

             Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan; Tenor:

             "The ASt's immediate complaint against the LG decision of 29.10.12 refusing PKH,

              will be terminated accordingly the relevant reasons for the contested and NAB decisions;

                The Senate can decide how to do this.

               The Senate maintains its view that its members are neither under § 41 nor are prevented

               from making a decision in ASt a proceedings pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, insofar as

               So far - neither conveys specific circumstances that suspect serious legal violations,

               especially legal violations, could justify, understandable reasons

              sets out which might justify the concern of bias.

 

       Comments: The reader recognizes Ms. Baan's writing style, as in her resolutions at the 11th Senate.

                            In addition: she gives herself absolution. The OLG-D´dorf stamp ensures the official power.

 

H63. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 5/11 (LG 2b o 129/08)

           Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

            Tenor: The As's immediate complaint against the PKH refusing LGH decision. from 10/12/2009

                        is rejected for the relevant reasons in the contested decision;

                        Düsseldorf 11/18/13; 18th Civil Senate

 

           Comments:

 

                     The reader recognizes the writing style of Mrs. Baan (ultra-short reason for the rejection)

                      as in their resolutions at the 11th Senate.

                       To this end, she gives herself absolution. The OLG-D'dorf stamp ensures the official power.

 

H64. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 8/11 (LG 2b o 7/11)

               Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

               Tenor: The As's immediate complaint against the PKH refusing LGH decision. from 18/01/11

                                  is rejected;

                The application for bias against Ms. Baan is rejected as inadmissible !!!.

                The LG refused the PKH to the ASt for its intended lawsuit because it took part in the there

                is insufficient prospect of success and the ASt lacks its personal and economic Conditions

                has not revealed. (NB: demonstrably false!!)

                This is directed against the immediate complaint of the ASt, who also chairs the first instance

                civil chamber unsuccessful because of alleged concern of bias and has filed a complaint.

               The decision on the complaint about the denied PKH is down to the Question of the rejection

               request in the present case.

               Because the PKH could not be granted a PKH because it did not provide any information

               has made to his personal and economic circumstances. (demonstrably false!!)

               He did not make up for this after his complaint, although the LG in his

              contested decision referred to the requirement (LÜGE). It was therefore missing

              the legal minimum requirements, which are not based on an assessment of the involved

              Judges depend and therefore not on suspected bias  could be influenced.

              Otherwise, the Senate also shares the opinion of the LG in its decision from 18.1.11

              that namely the submission of the As an official liability claim acc. § 839 BGB

              in conjunction Article 34 of the Basic Law cannot justify, but is based on unfounded

             accusations exhausted against various judges who in the past participated in the ASt

             involved in the proceedings. The ASt also covers the members of the crucial civil senates

             constantly with baseless allegations and accusations as well Requests for bias which lack

             any real basis. His behavior poses thus proving itself to be an abuse of the law.

           That is why the Senate can decide on the planned occupation, including Judge Baan,

           although the ASt has rejected it in an abusive and inadmissible manner - as biased."

 

    Comments: The reader recognizes in the last lines that Ms. Baan grants absolution to herself;

                litigation from September 2009 to May 2010 as part of the 11th Senate Putsch Club that she

               shares with the other accomplices (Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm /

              Müller) committed allegations or baseless allegations; Displaying the Process fraud on the part 

               of the ASt is allegedly abusive; does the public prosecutor notice ???

 

             Of course, on 6 December 2013, the legal complaint against the Senate decision (OLG decision.

            Az 18 W 82/12 concerning LG 2b o 148/12) signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan. not too; The

            requirements of Section 574 of the ZPO was allegedly not fulfilled.

            No interest that her crimes being dealt by BGH-Judges

 

H65. On 6 December 2013 the OLG decision was issued. Az 18 W 45/13 (LG 2b o 67/08)

         Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

        Tenor: "The As' s complaint against the Senate decision of November 7th, 13th is just like the

               Application for admission of the legal complaint against this decision rejected as inadmissible.

               Reasons: the decision on a complaint against a value in dispute is not the legal complaint

               acc. 574 ff ZPO opened, but the further complaint acc. Section 68 (1) 66 (4) GKG.

               However, this is only permissible if the LG and not, as here, the OLG has decided as an appeal court.

           The admission of another complaint the law does not provide for the BGH and therefore cannot be

             requested by the plaintiff

                Therefore, the decision of the Senate of November 7, 2013 is final and no longer appealable,

                would theoretically comb a hearing complaint § 321a ZPO into consideration.

                However, the complaint is only admissible if it is shown in due time and form that the Court

                in its decision the right of the party to be heard has significantly violated the decision.

 

     Comments: The OLG committee with Ms. Baan allegedly "has no decision-making relevance

                          violated the plaintiff's right to be heard ". The OLG / LG litigation and legal violations

                           It is not enough to describe and therefore accuse them. The formalities are important.

 

H66. On 10 December 2013, the OLG decision was issued. 18 W 48/12 (LG 2b o 238/11)

          Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: The hearing complaints and application of November 29, 2013 for admission of the legal complaint

                      against OLG decision from 18.11.13 are rejected because the legal

                      Requirements, sections 321a and 574 ZPO are not met.

 

          Comments: The first LG order to the OLG (with decision of November 26, 2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                          /Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht) that the plaintiff 's claims to Az 2b o 271/01 as "time-barred" must

                         be declared, has reached the Malsch and the first thoughts already taken

 

H67. On December 10th, 2013 Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan enact the OLG decision. 18 W 5/11 (LG 2b o 129/08).

           Tenor: "The application by the ASt for admission of the legal appeal against the Senate decision

                         dated November 18, 2013 and his hearing on December 1, 2013 are rejected.

                         The legal requirements for admission of the legal complaint against the Senate resolution of

                       November 18, 2013 has not been met Section 574 ZPO.

                         The A's hearing complaint is unfounded, § 321a ZPO.

                       Since the Senate published the contested PKH decision of the LG on October 12, 2009 in the

                      Justification and in the result as correct, he must in his complaint decision do not go into

                     the details of the ASt in detail, which are already broad Stretches in unsustainable legal versions,

                       conspiracy theories and insults against the judges concerned.

 

        Comments: The fraudster (Ms. Baan) and member No. 4 of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate accused

                           the ASt due to alleged "conspiracy theories"; the next conspiracy of the 18th Senate

                          it's in preparation; however, it is not familiar with "statute of limitations" and can

                          do not argue legally, therefore she (Ms. Baan) will soon be out of OLG-D´dorf 18.

                         Senate removed. Malsch has already made up his mind. Ms. Baan is a burden for Malsch

        

H68. On September 25, 2014, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 30/14 (LG 2b o 17/14)

         signed Malsch / Weith / Ms Baan.

               Tenor: The immediate complaint of April 26, 2014 against the decision of April 4, 2014

                            the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf is for the appropriate reasons the

                             contested decision and the NAB decision from 29.4.2014 back pointed.

                     Noticeably no cost decision.

 

  Comments: Ms. Baan is a burden for Malsch; he wants to be unloaded for the next trial fraud and search

                       for Young OLG judges. Malsch has already received the LG order dated 07/07/2014 and

                     understood;  the plaintiff's claims for damages under Az 2b o 271/01 must be declared as

                     "SUPERANNUATED"

 

H69. On October 1, 2014, the OLG decision was issued. 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/08)

                 Malsch / Haarmann / Baan

        Tenor: Hearings from 14.11.12 against OLG decision 7.11.12 rejected Because of legal

                    no hearing injury; No change in the cost decision prompted.

 

H70. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. Az 18 W 83/12 (LG 2b o 149/12) Weith / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

                 (Why not the chairman Malsch ?!)

           Tenor: "The hearing complaint of the ASt from January 29th, 2013

                 will rejected. Breaches of official duty allegedly not conclusively stated! "

 

H71. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. 18 W 21/12 (LG 2b o 23/12)

         Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

           Tenor:  Hearings from 12.4.2012 against OLG decision from 30.3.12 rejected as inadmissible;

                           Legal complaint not allowed; Not a word about costs or cost decisions !!!

 

  Comments: Ms. Baan is already a burden for Malsch; he wants to be unloaded for the next trial fraud

                      He search for Young OLG judges. Malsch has already received the LG order dated 07/07/2014

                     and understood;

                    the plaintiff's claims for damages under Az 2b o 271/01 must be declared as "Superannuated".

                    The preparations for the transfer of Ms. Baan and the selection for the new one have already

                   been made.

 

H72. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. 18 W 27/12 (LG 2b o 22/12) Malsch / Haarmann / Baan

          Tenor:

                 "Immediate complaint of February 20, 2012 against LG decision of February 8, 2014 and NAB of

                   March 21, 2012 rejected because of the applicable LG reasons.

                     Cost decision not initiated.

      

   Comments: (Malsch's recommendation was:)

                       Provide no reason for the plaintiff to challenge the cost decision

 

H73. The OLG decision is issued on 6.10.14. for Az 18 W 39/12 (LG 2b o 6/11)

               Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

          Tenor: "The immediate complaint of 4.2.11 against the decision of 18.1.2011 of the 2b civil

                         Chamber of LG-D´dorf is for the correct reasons of the contested decision

                        in the version of the non-remedial decision (= NAB) from 7.2.2011 rejected.

                      The application for bias against Ms. Baan dated 5.2.12 is due to abuse of rights

                      rejected as inadmissible

                      According to the assessment of Section 72 (2) ZPO, Ms. Baan is not in a decision regarding

  • § 41 No. 1 ZPO prevented if - as in the case of a dispute - without substantiated and

                   comprehensible There is a clear justification. A judge's official opinion was given

                    its dispensable (striking no cost decision)

       

     Comments: OLG decision after 43 months. Showing the blockade is abusive !!!

 

H74. On October 9, 2014 (after 2 years !!) the OLG decision is issued. 18 W 84/12

           Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

         Tenor: the immediate complaint from 8.11.12 against LG decision from 5.11.12 and NAB from 15.11.12

                      is rejected. The application for bias against Ms. Baan as abusive discarded. After evaluating                        

                     section 72 of the ZPO, no decision within the meaning of section 41 of the ZPO hindered. This also

                    applies to the rejection of Ms. Brecht not by official channels excluded: The decisions of the LG are

                    not illegal.     Not a word about costs and no cost decision!

 

On December 26, 2014 (Az 2b o 258/14), the plaintiff filed a new official liability action / PKH because of the delay

in the 18th Senate, in particular because of the role of Ms. Baan in delaying the decision on Az 2b o 271/01

and the resulting ones Damage for the realization of the patent "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM".

Az 2b o 258/14 is theoretically completed in 2019

 

On January 12, 2015 the LG decision is issued, Az 2b o 258/14, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht / Mr.

       Feldmann PKH application from 12/26/14 rejected because claims from 2b o 271/01 allegedly "barred".

 

Comments:

 

             Already the "FOURTH ORDER" of the LG-2b chamber to the OLG (18th Senate) that the compensation

              claims of the plaintiff to Az 2b o 271/01 have to be declared as "barred" (first: by decision from

              26.11.2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Fr.Jürging/Fr.Brecht; the second: by decision of 28.5.2014

              (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Ms. Freytag; the third: signed with a remedy decision of 7 July 2014.

                 Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Feldmann (the latter intern, i.e. judge on trial)

 

In April. In 2015, Ms. Glaeser registered as a member of the 18th Senate; in May 2015 the public prosecutor's

office in D'dorf (decision of public prosecutor Ms. Dr. Frömgen) declined to investigate Malsch and

Ms. Baan; allegedly the above no legal penalty, no crime committed.

 

Ms. Frömgen knew that the preparations at the 18th Senate, OLG-D´dorf, for the process fraud

from 3 September 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) are in full swing ??? and

granted the process fraudsters (Malsch & Co) freedom with their decision of May 2015 ??

 

Summary; Who is Who Lawbreaker/Trial Fraud/Criminal at LG/OLG-D´dorf

 

Since the filing of official liability claims on June 21, 1999 (2b o 118/99), on February 5, 2001 (2b o 271/01),

and on November 20, 2001 (2b o 268/01), the LG / OLG judges have only violated the law / Crimes / procedural

fraud committed to derail and then destroy the official liability actions with claims for damages due to the

crimes of the FA-Mettmann against the plaintiff.

The criminals have even been promoted !!!

 

The offenses started with Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter /Mr Schumacher in 2000

and then they went on with Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Galle /

Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Habich (2002-2009); Offenses indisputable.

 

Two times (2000, 2008) the LG judges (Tannert / Fuhr / Stöve / Wolks-Falter and Mr. Schumacher, and then

Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser) tried to eliminate the plaintiff as partially incapable of trial.

Everything out of care duty ??? Penalty according to § 339 StGB: 5 years in prison

 

In 2007, the LG judges, with the help of the cost official Habich, successfully served the suit

Block for 4 years (2006-2010). The fraudster (Strupp-Müller) was even promoted.

 

On April 16, 2008 the plaintiff survived an attempted murder on the A5 motorway south of Karlsruhe;

Who planned the murder and who was the murderer? The authorities are silent.

 

Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann participated in dozens of lawsuits in the years 2009-2013

under the leadership of Mrs. Tigges or under the leadership of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

From 2010-2016 the negotiation date for Az 2b o 271/01 v.A.w. is 6 times postponed;

The files would have been with the OLG again and again; in 2007-11 several leaves disappear!

 

The Putsch Club of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate with 7 judges (2009-2012) tries to eliminate the plaintiff

with 99 resolutions; Mrs. Jungclaus / Mrs. Baan grant absolution to themselves and to the other accomplices

of the fraud (Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm)

 

Ms. Baan accuses the ASt of making unfounded allegations against the judges; but what is baseless

not proven to some extent by Ms. Baan. Therefore earned the title of Ms. B (l) aan-B (l) aan.

 The people rightly say: "A crow does not chop out another eye"

 

The 2 decisions of November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014 unequivocally show the intention of the LG judges

Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Jürging, and Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freytag to

declare the claims as "barred". The first time i.e. on November 26, 2012 the claims to Az 2b o 271/01

would be time-barred on December 31, 2009. The second time with a decision dated May 28, 2014 as

"barred" on June 30, 2010. All violations of duty due to duty of care?

 

On July 18, 2012 the rapporteur Ms. Brecht tried to convince the newly appointed RA by telephone to

discontinue her mandate for Az 2b o 271/01. What made Ms. Brecht do it? Duty of care ?? or blind hatred ??

or pressure from the Stockschlaeder-Nöll; Punishment: prison

 

On July 7, 2014 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht /Mr Feldmann, "order" with NAB to the OLG-

18. Senate unmistakably the "LIMITATION of the claims for damages" of the plaintiff. Punishment: prison

Is the statute of limitations on July 7th, 2014, sent out of duty of care ???

 

The OLG committee of the 18th Senate Malsch / Ms. Glasses / Anger to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 manipulated on

3.9 2015 the legal texts of the BGB a.F. to come to the conclusion that the claims on July 31, 2006 were

time-barred.

 

    Was the manipulation of the legal texts of the BGB a.F. on September 3, 2015, to come to the result

    that the claims for damages would be time-barred on July 31, 2006, also from duty of care been done ???

    Are the allegations baseless? Penalty under the Criminal Code: prison for offenders.

 

The LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach unconditionally assume the trial amount of the

OLG-18 Senate (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) from 3.9.2015 in the LG final judgment of 11.5.2016 and

declare the claims for damages as alleged barred on July 31, 2006; but on May 30, 2016 Stockschlaeder-Nöll

and Ms. Gundlach signed a voluntary declaration of bias without any time limit.

Do the above Women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach) approved the OLG process fraud in order

to fulfill the duty of care towards the plaintiff ??? or because of blind hatred?

 

On August 30, 2017, the well-known fraudsters Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser rejected the PKH for the (appeal)

appointment 18 U 69/16 on the grounds that the claims for damages on "June 30, 2000" would have expired.

Do the above Women (Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser) committed the new process fraud on August 30, 2017

only out of duty of care? and the claims for damages declared statute-barred on June 30, 2000 ???.

 

On October 18, 2017, the OLG committee Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner dismissed the appeal

18 U 69/16 on the grounds (as on August 30, 2017) that the claims for damages were allegedly "barred" on

June 30, 2000.

Do the above Women (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) committed the new process fraud on

October 18, 2017 only out of duty of care and declared the claims for damages to be statute-barred

on June 30, 2000 ??

 

The process fraud is always indicated, but the accomplices never wanted to see it

 

Many LG / OLG judges involved in the legal fraud against the plaintiff have been promoted.

also by chance ?? or with salary bonus due to transportation e.g.

 

  1. Ms. Fuhr (2000/2001) promoted to OLG
  2. Ms. Glaeser on August 15, 2019 as Deputy Chairwoman of the OLG-D´dorf 18th Civil Senate
  3. Ms. Stöve (2003) as LG chairwoman
  4. Ms. Schmidt-Kötters as OLG judge
  5. Ms. Wolks-Falter as OLG judge (2010/2011)
  6. Mr. Schumacher as LG presiding judge and then
  7. Mr. Schwarz promoted as LG chairman
  8. Ms Brückner-Hoffmann as chairwoman of the LG judge in 2003
  9. Ms. Strupp-Müller in 2008 as judge for LG
  10. Ms. Köstner-Plümpe as OLG judge
  11. Ms. Brecht (2015) gets a job at the OLG-D´dorf and
  12. Ms. Freytag (2015) is promoted to Chair LG judge.
  13. Ms. Dr. Hoffmann was subsequently promoted to chairwoman of the LG judge
  14. Ms. Grabensee, the Member ofPutsch Club of the 11th Senate,
  15.             has been promoted to OLG-D´dorf chairwoman judge,
  16. Mr H.-G. Müller, Member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, promoted to OLG-D'dorf presiding judge.
  17. Mr Bünten, "Capo" of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, promoted as President of the LG Duisburg
  18. Ms. Jungclaus, rank 2 of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, as vice president of the LG-D´dorf

 

Some other parties to litigation fraud have not been mentioned here.

(Malsch/Anger/Ms Kirschner/Unger/Ms Baan etc)

 

The cost decisions of the above Trial fraudsters challenged and never decided.

 

The requests for annulment of the decisions rejecting the LG / OLG-PKH and the LG / OLG

judgments due to the fraud by the LG / OLG judges are still not being cancelled.

 

The bank seizures since 1986-1989 for alleged tax evasion by the criminals of the FA-Mettmann are still

not lifted.

 

The public prosecutor is hereby sought against the LG / OLG trial fraudsters named

to start an investigation and bring the accused to the judge's court

Thera are many CRIMES according to § 339 of the Criminal Code.

 

I am available for further information and for further evidence (which is understandably not included here

so that the volume does not increase excessively).

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Attached documents

 

  1. Tannert's Manuscript of the "order" dated March 31, 2000 to AG-Essen;

                                               Supervisor with reservation of consent

  1. Ms. Tannert's official statement of May 18, 2001
  2. Manuscript, draft of the decision of July 2, 2001 Mrs. Wolks-Falter signed

                                             "in representation of the chairwoman"

  1. LG decision from 2.7.2001 (rejection of the application for bias against Tannert) signed

                                               Ms. Stöve / Ms Wolks-Falter / Ms. Schmidt-Kötters

  1. Manuscript, note dated July 4th, 2001 from Mrs. Tannert to Wo-Fa that because of § 47 ZPO not with

                                            "in representation of the chairwoman " may sign the decision

  1. Ms. Wolks-Falter signs the decision on July 6, 2001 (rejection of the separate Az for the

         Lawsuit of 5.2.2001) as a "single judge" although she was not.

  1. Wolks-Falter on July 20, 2001 sends the RA complaint to the OLG-D´dorf as a decision

                                            "Single judge" with a few handwritten words

  1. LG separation decision of November 29, 2001, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll, " in representation of the

                                                           chairwoman "

9.---

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 to Az 2b o 118/99 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 129/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 142/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 143/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 172/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 194/07 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 to Az 2b o 268/01 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

        Seelmann of the AG-Essen for a supervisor) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 271/01 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr.Hoffmann

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from May 20, 2009 on Az 2b o 118/99 (ordering the end result

           of the OLG about the immediate complaint from April 15, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Dr.Hoffmann

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 129/08 (the immediate complaint from

            9.4.2009 against the decision of 23.3.2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 142/08 (the immediate complaint from

            April 12, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 172/08 (the immediate complaint from

            11.4.2009 against the decision of 23.3.2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 194/07 (the immediate complaint from

            April 8, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

 

  1. Official statement of 7 December 2009 by Mr. Bünten for 14 OLG Az
  2. ---
  3. ---
  4. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated February 23, 2010 of the notification of the OLG resolutions

                                                                                                     of February 16, 2010

  1. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated February 25, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions

                                                                                                       of February 18, 2010

  1. Copy of the 8 envelopes dated February 27, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions

                                                                                                       of February 22, 2010

  1. Copy of the 6 envelopes dated 2.3.2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of 22.2.2010
  2. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated 7.4.2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of 30.3.2010
  3. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated May 21, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of May 12, 2010

45.OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

  1. ​​OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

   14 resolutions of 16.2.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Wermeckes/Ms. Grabensee/Dahm

 

59.OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) sign. Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

71st OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) sign. Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller

14 resolutions of 18.2.10 of the process frauds mentioned above Ms. Jungclaus/Ms. Baan/Wermeckes/Müller

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

       14 resolutions of 22.2.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus /

                                                                               Wermeckes /Ms Baan / Müller; Everyone is silent about it

 

87.OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  13. OLG-D´dorf Dec. 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

     14 resolutions of 30.3.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Wermeckes/Ms. Grabensee/Dahm

 

101.OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2bo 271/01), signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed by Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Ms Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed by Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller

             14 resolutions of 31.3.10 of process frauds Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes / Müller

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan

120th OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller

121st OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller

122nd OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller

127th OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

14 decision of 12.5.10 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /

                                      Ms .Baan /Miller; Undermining of the law by the OLG judge.

 

  1. BVerfG decision June 11, 2010, Az 2 BvR 845/10, signed Osterloh / Mellinghoff / Gerhard

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 16 June 2010, Az 11 W 19/10 (2b o 203/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

 

In the following resolutions, with one or two fraudsters writes to the decision-making committee and

relieves the remaining process fraudsters; reject the applications for bias as inadmissible !!!

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 29.12.2010, Az 11 W 77/10 (2b o 129/08), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 28.1.2011, Az 11 W 94/10 (LG 2b o 45/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.1.2011, Az 11 W 55/10 (LG 2b o 203/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Fr.Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.1.2011, Az 11 W 79/10 (LG 2b o 121/10 separated from 2b o 271/01) signed.

                   Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller; Rejection as inadmissible of the application for partiality

                   October 23, 2010 against Ms. Baan/Müller/Wermeckes/Ms. Jungclaus. "Nemo judex in causa sua"

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 10.2.2011, Az 11 W 97/10 (2b o 177/10), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  2. LG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2011, Az 2b or 203/09, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Keiser / Ms. Mossbrucker
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 9.3.2011, 11 W 97/10 (2b or 177/10), signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 9.3.2011, Az 11 W 87/10 (2b o 268/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 17.3.2011, Az 11 W 7/11 (2b o 203/09), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.4.2011, 11 W 61/10 (2bo 145/08) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes

                           Applications for bias against the fraudsters Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes /

                           / Müller will be rejected as inadmissible (abusive) !!!

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 21.4.2011, Az 11 W 7/11 (2b o 203/09), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 27.4.2011, Az 11 W 55/11 (2b o 203/09), signed. Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.5.2011 Az 11 W 83/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Wurmeckes
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.6.2011, 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.8.2011, 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 20.12.2011, 11 W 81/10 (2b o 170/08), signed Roitzheim / Wermeckes / Koewius
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 29.2.2012, 11 W 83/10, signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.5.2012, Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 11.7.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 26.9.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 5.11.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.11.2012, Az 18 W 4/12 (2b o 170/08), signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.11.2012, Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.1.2013, Az 18 W 83/12 (2b o 149/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 11.3.2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.4.2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.11.2013, Az 18 W 45/13 (2b o 67/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 5/11 (2b o 129/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 48/12 (2b o 238/11), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 8/11 (2b o 7/11), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 6.12.2013, Az 18 W 45/13 (2b o 67/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan

 

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 2.5.2012, Az 2b o 271/01, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Hoffmann / Ms. Brecht

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 25.9.2014, Az 18 W 30/14 (2b o 17/14), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 2.10.2014, Az 18 W 27/12 (2b o 22/12), signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

 

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 21.3.2012, Az 2b o 22/12, signed Schwarz / Fröml / Ms. Brecht

 

  1. Letter from the plaintiff dated January 21, 2015 to Az 2b o 258/14; illegally tinkered LG committee

                                           makes decisions based on incorrect assumptions

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 16.6.2016, Az 2b o 76/16, signed Ms. Jugclaus / Ms. Harsta / Witte
  2. LG-D´dorf decision 8.11.2016, Az 2b o 76/16, signed Ms. Jugclaus / Ms. Harsta / Wink
  3. LG-D´dorf decision 7.6.2018, Az 2b o 258/14, signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /Mr Renner

 

The "Sofisma" (translated from ancient Greek):

 

"A student contacted the Rhetoric law teacher and made the following agreement with him.

"I pay the tuition fees when I win the first process" The teacher accepted it.

After completing the training, the student did not want to pay and the teacher went to court:

 

> "The teacher argued: If I win the process, the student has to, because of me

    Your decision to pay the tuition; but if I lose, my student has it

    won the first trial, and by agreement he has to pay to me the tuition fees.

  

> "The student argued: If I don't pay tuition fees after the court's decision

      then my teacher receives nothing; but if I lose the first trial, then after

     Agreement, I don't owe the teacher anything either ".

 

Unfortunately, the story did not tell us how the judges at that time decided.

 

The reader discovers "Sofisma" in the LG-D´dorf decision of 8.11.2016, Az 2b o 76/16,

   signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Harsta / Wink; Page 7, penultimate paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

(Translation from German to English made with the GOOGLE translation program,

which is changed in some paragraphs; Please announce errors)

Last modified on Wednesday, 08 April 2020 14:08

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 ESSEN-Kettwig

January 16, 2020

 

To the

Prosecutor's office in Düsseldorf

Fritz Roeber Str. 2

40213 Dusseldorf

 

Abbreviations used

LG-D´dorf = regional court of Düsseldorf, OLG = court of appeal of Düsseldorf; AG= a magistrate´s court

StGB = German Penal Code; GVG = Tribunal Constitution Law; GG = Constitution of Germany;

i.d.S. = in the sense; ZPO = Civil Procedure Code; GVP = Business Distribution plan; e.g.= for example

u.v.V. = and linked processes; FA = Tax office; FG = Financial Tribunal; Mädel = young Madams Judges

PKH= demand for financial judicial aid; Az = Number of File; BGB a.F. = Civil Code of old Revision

BGH= supreme political Tribunal of Germany; EGBGB= Introduction-law of Civil Code; RAe= Advocates

GKG= Tribunal Cost Law; GA Bl. = Sheet of official files

 

Here: Criminal charges against LG-D'dorf judge Mrs. Strupp-Müller, against LG-D´dorf judge Galle

            and against the LG cost officer HABICH

           for crimes in the sense of Section 331 of the Criminal Code or legal deflection in the sense of §

           339 StGB, on LG Az 2b o 271/01 as well as against the LG-D´dorf judges Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

           because of legal infringement i.S.d. § 339 StGB on Az 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 194/07, and against

           LG judges Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann and Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe

 

Dear Sirs and Madames,

Herewith, the undersigned, address as above, has filed a criminal complaint against the named LG judge

Mrs. Strupp-Müller (currently in the 5th civil chamber LG-D´dorf), against the LG judge Galle (currently in the

1st civil chamber of the LG-D ´dorf) and against the LG-D´dorf cost official HABICH for multiple deliberate crimes

in the sense of § 331 StGB or due to several violations of law against § 339 StGB and against law (e.g. Art. 101 GG,

Art. 103 GG, Art. 75 GVG, GVP, § 48 ZPO).

such as

against the LG-D´dorf judge of the 2b civil chamber Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll, against Mrs Dr. Hoffmann (currently

at the 29th small punishment chamber of the LG-D´dorf) and against Ms. Köstner-Plümpe for multiple crimes

in the sense of § 331 StGB or due to multiple legal deferrals within the meaning of § 339 StGB to Az 2b o 271/01 or

due to several violations (e.g. Art. 101 GG, Art. 103 GG, Art. 75 GVG, Art. 47 ZPO)

The accused cost official arbitrarily supplemented / falsified the file content (after consultation with Stockschlaeder-Nöll),

and then the judges (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) helped the 2b civil chamber by means of trial fraud

(i.e. with decisions based on the falsified file content) first to block the delivery of the lawsuit dated 5.1.2001 for 4 years

and then to wipe away the traces of immediate complaints and finally the alleged limitation of damage claims to Az

2b o 271/01 u.v.FROM (2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 194/07 etc) in relation to the breaches of duty by the officials

of the Mettmann tax office in 1979-2006 against the plaintiff (engineer + inventor)

 

It is requested against the above. Judges at the Düsseldorf Regional Court to initiate investigations

and open criminal proceedings.

 

  1. Briefly the most important thing

 

A1. The plaintiff (engineer + inventor) was blackmailed by the FA-Mettmann, his factory to realize his

        Patents to manufacture here (in FRG); After rejection of the extortion, the FA did the alleged

        Tax evasion invented to hide the double entry errors about 511 TDM;

       the FA has confiscated by banks for alleged debts of 333 DM thousand; More is looted

       as 264,500 DM; the plaintiff was jailed for the fictitious debt.

     At the FG-D´dorf the plaintiff (1986-2006) won more than 30 lawsuits and the FA started

        Little by little to reimburse the looted:

       Last reimbursement on December 15, 2006 after a "agreement" in front of the FG-D´dorf.

       Total of the individual reimbursements: approx. DM 248 thousand.

         (no interest, and not even all the capital !!)

 

A2. With the official liability suit of 5.2.2001 the plaintiff has claims for damages before the LG-D´dorf

       asserted and submitted a PKH application (with the same date 5.2.2001).

       The first staff of the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf (Mrs. Tannert/Mrs. Fuhr/Schumacher)

       attracted attention through legal inflections, and was completely replaced around November 20,

       2001.

A3. The new 2b chamber from (chairwoman Stockschlaeder-Nöll) lifted on November 29th, 2001

        Resolutions of the first staff (Tannert / Fuhr / Schumacher). (see attachments)

A4. On December 18, 2002 the new chairwoman was rejected because of bias and despite memories

       the exclusion request was decided on January 17, 2008 (after almost 6 years!) by an unlawful

        LG committee (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt) rejected as unfounded.

A5. The PKH application filed on February 5, 2001 was therefore decided on April 4, 2003 after 2 years

      (!!) by a legal adverse committee, where the accused Strupp-Müller participated, was rejected as

     unfounded.

A6. From the above and for other reasons Ms. Strupp-Müller was rejected on May 5, 2003 as biased.

A7. On May 11, 2005, an illegal LG staff led from the rejected Stockschlaeder-Nöll, where Mr. Galle

       also participated, the request for exclusion of May 5, 2003 against Strupp-Müller rejects

       as unfounded, as well as the delivery of the claim without advance payment; (see attachments)

A8. On April 21, 2006 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll determined the amount in dispute (in GA sheet no. 408);

         prompted them that cost officials HABICH receive files 2b o 271/01 after consultation and check

        whether the paid advance payment is covered. (see attachments)

A9. Ms. Strupp-Müller leads an illegal LG committee on August 9, 2007 (with the participation of

        Mr. Galle and Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser) and rejects the PKH requested on 9.9.2005.

         (see attachments)

A10. On the same day (August 9, 2007), Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser contacted the plaintiff and claimed

        that not to have found an application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll for Az 2b o 271/01.

       (Distraction against the process fraud of August 9, 2007) and preparation of the next one.

       To decide on the plaintiff's memories of the request for exclusion, 18.12.2002, in the

       Files are included, Engelkamp-Neeser is silent. She arranges for the cost officer HABICH

        check whether the plaintiff's payments for the court fees for 2b o 271/01 are sufficient.

          

A11. On August 29, 2007, the cost officer Habich made an illegal addition to files 2b o

        271/01. You can see the process fraud (Habich / Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser);

        he falsifies the content of the file with the provisionally accepted (increased!) value of the dispute

        and ascertain an open balance for court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69. The file supplement

       (GA Bl. 476R) was superfluous, because on April 21, 2006 Stockschlaeder-Nöll correctly determined

         the amount in dispute, and also contradicted previous Habich filing notes (see attachments)

 

A12. On September 18, 2007 (i.e. only three weeks after the file forgery by Mr Habich dated

        August 29, 2007) Ms. Strupp-Müller leads an illegal LG committee (with the participation of

         Mr Galle and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser) and refuses to serve the complaint with reference 5.2.2001

       (with reasons) on Mr Habich's fraud, i.e. that the court fees are still would not be paid in full

         Ms. Bückner of the LG secretary office reported it on September 18, 2007.

        

A13.Mrs Strupp-Müller ordered (!!) and went straight to the OLG-D´dorf 18th Senate (approx. 10

         October 2007 (not 1. November 2007); an immediate complaint against the LG decision

        18.9.2007 disappears in time

A14. The chairman of the 18th Senate (Malsch) manipulates the 2 file numbers for the complaints

       against LG resolutions from Aug 9, 2007 and Sept. 18, 2007, during the same time many leaves

       out files 2b o 271/01 disappear. (Reconstruction of manipulation can be forwarded)

 

A15.Mrs Strupp-Müller will return to LG-D´dorf around mid-2008, promoted to chairwoman judge

 

A16. Ms. Köstner-Plümpe leads an unlawful committee on January 17th, 2008 as a pseudo-chairwoman

          (Köstner-Plümpe / Mrs Vaupel / Mrs Schmidt), bilded from Mädels of the judge Galle's chamber

         and after Instructions from Stockschlaeder-Nöll or after consultation with Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser,

           exonerated (after 6 years) Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from the accusation of bias on December

         18, 2002  to Az 2b o 271/01; The exclusion request is rejected as unfounded; Right- violations:

          Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG; Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe in 2008 was only brief to the 2b chamber

           and later promoted to the 3rd civil senate of the OLG-D´dorf. (see attachments)

 

A17. The participation of the 2b chamber member (Mrs Hoffmann) in the assembled committee

         (Mrs. Tigges / Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Hoffmann) on March 23/24, 2009, where no presiding judge

         after GVG § 75 sits, corresponds to the pattern of legal infractions conceived and executed on the

         part Stockschlaeder-Nöll, which takes advantage of the "girls" to be relieved from them, from the

        accusation of Bias, because of the secret requests and secret emails to the judge of the AG-Essen,

        (see attachments)

        On March 23/24, 2009, the above illegal LG staff issued 14 decisions; therefore the Ms.

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll has not violated any laws; The exclusion request is considered unfounded;

       14 times rejected; The "prompter" was very relieved afterwards. Especially since she

       (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) was certain about the support of the "superhuman" (Bünten) in

       the complaints raised.

  

 A18. The delivery of the complaint will be based on the value in dispute determined by the

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll on April 21, 2006, delivered to the defendant (after 4 years of blockade !!)

     in September 2010. The damage caused by the right adverse entry in the files by cost

       officials Habich dated 29.8.2007 and the illegal LG staff of Strupp-Müller, was due to the late

       delivery of the lawsuit, even Not repaired in the year 2019.

   

A19. After many violations of the law (the LG / OLG judge committed in several lawsuits, and

        in other criminal charges e.g. from 10.10.2010, and others against OLG judge of the 11th Senate,

       or Az 40 Js 3845/15 against judges of the 18th senate) commits the 18th senate (Mr Malsch/Mrs

       Glaeser/Mr Anger) on 3 September 2015 process fraud and after manipulation/addition/change

       of legal texts the BGB a.F. (e.g. § 209) determine that the claims for damages allegedly

       on "July 31, 2006" would be "barred". (see attachments)

       The date "July 31, 2006" was the third for the alleged limitation of the claims;

       to 2 faulty LG decisions from 26.11.2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Brecht/Mrs. Jürging

     "limitation dated December 31, 2009 " , and of May 28, 2014 (signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs

       Brecht/Mrs Freitag, "Limitation on 30.6.2010 "

 

A20. On May 11, 2016 the LG committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Gundlach / Frank identifies

        himself unconditionally with the process fraud committed by the 18th Senate on Az 18 W 1/13

       on 3.9.2015, and rejects all claims for damages with the final judgment as presumed to have

       expired on July 31, 2006

 

A21.The arguments contained in the appeal from 18.8.2016 are ignored by the OLG committee and

       the Claims for damages with judgment from 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 as on June 30, 2000 !!

        allegedly barred, rejected. The last-OLG process fraud was discovered and reported around the

       beginning of Aug. 2019.

 

A22. The BGH closed on May 24, 2018 the process fraud of the OLG-D´dorf on October 18, 2017.

 

  1. Legal position

 

B1.    "The judges are subject to the law (Art. 97 GG) and there is a violation of the law,

                      if a decision cannot be justified with legal rules ".

    Article 97 of the Basic Law guarantees the protection of legal validity against attacks from "inside",

                 i.e. from judges.

B2. According to § 339 StGB, the legal violations are punishable with a prison sentence of 5 years and

       the Limitation period (for general offenses that are subject to the limitation period) depends on

       the amount of the penalty, i.e. the limitation period in general cases with the threat of punishment

      of 5 years, expires after 5 years (§ 78 No. 4 StGB).

     The start of the limitation period is based on § 78a StGB (after a procedure has become final/

      completed). The limitation period is suspended in the cases of § 78b StGB.

B3. The procedure 2b o 271/01 went through all four instances (LG / OLG / BGH / BVerfG) and is only

       legally terminated by decision of the BVerfG of 20.9.2018. (BVerfG decision received on

        6.10.2018) (Annex no. )

B4. Concerning the beginning of the limitation period for the lodging of appeals regarding damages

      Claims due to damage caused by decisions made by civil servants, apply to Section 839 BGB and the

      BGH Decision, that

                                     "The limitation period can only start if the victim knows

                                       that the official acted INTENTIONALLY. "

                                         Proof of "intent" is provided by

 

B4.1. The LG decision of 4.4.2003 on Az 2b o 271/01 (PKH rejection) signed Mrs. Brückner-Hoffmann /

             Mrs. Strupp-Müller / Mrs. Adam; unlawful staff; Violation of § 839 (1) BGB, Art. 101 GG

  • § 75 GVG, offense covered by section 339 of the Criminal Code with up to 5 years'

             imprisonment. (see attachments)

 

B4.2. The LG decision of May 11, 2005 on Az 2b o 271/01 (signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Drees /Mr

          Galle) with decided 5 points, and below (point 4) the alleged discharge of Strupp-Müller on the

         part of the above unlawful staff which is not competent under GVP (violations against Art. 101 GG,

  • § 47 ZPO); Crime completed; Penalty according to the Criminal Code up to 5 years in prison.

B4.3. The LG decision from Sept. 18, 2007 to Az 2b o 271/01 (signed Strupp-Müller/Engelkamp-Neeser

         /Galle) with which the complaint is served with reference to the note from the cost officer HABICH

           dated Aug 29, 2007 (allegedly not fully paid court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69)

             is rejected; illegal staff, violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG, § 47 ZPO.

              Trial fraud completed and punishable under § 339 StGB with up to 5 years in prison

 

B4.4. The entry dated 29 Aug. 2007 in files 2b o 271/01 page 476R (R = back) signed HABICH

          about provisionally assumed (increased) amount in dispute and supposedly open rest for

         the court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69 (§ 331 StGB etc.) (see attachments)

        (Deliberate crime with the intention of helping the judges to the proces fraud and serious

         Consequences of damage for the plaintiff; See payment request/billing for € 245.69 dated

         27.9.2019 of the Central Paying Agent Justice Hamm for Az 2b o 271/01) (see attachments)

 

B4.5. The LG decision of January 17, 2008 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Köstner-Plümpe/Mrs Vaupel/Mrs.

         Schmidt (Application for bias from December 18, 2002 against Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll (allegedly)

         unfounded. illegal staff, violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG.

        The date 18.12.2002 of the application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll becomes

        intentionally falsified to come to the conclusion that Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll does not LIE

        in her official statement (see attachments)

        Offense completed and punishable according to § 339 StGB with up to 5 years imprisonment

 

B4.6. The OLG-D´dorf decision of 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch/Mrs Glaeser/

            /Mr Anger; (Document included in the attachments)

          Process fraud with manipulation / change / addition of the legal texts BGB a.F. (e.g. § 209)

          to come to the conclusion that the claims for damages asserted with lawsuit February 5, 2001

           on July 31, 2006 would have been "barred". Criminal offense provided for 5 years in prison

 

B4.7. The LG-D´dorf final judgment of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/

         /Fr.Gundlach / Frank with rejection of all claims for damages due to alleged limitation

          on "31.7.2006" according OLG decision of 3.9.2015 i.e. after the process fraud to BGB a.F.

 

B4.8. OLG-D´dorf from August 30th, 2017 (Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser) (see attachments)

         PKH for the appointment rejected as unfounded; Process fraud to come to the conclusion

         that all damage claims for compensation were allegedly barred on June 30, 2000 (!!)

           (see also Az 141 Js 2483/19)

 

B4.9. OLG-D´dorf judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/17 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) signed

          Mrs Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner); see Az 141 Js 2483/19

         Process fraud to come to the conclusion that the claims for damages, asserted

         with complaint 5.2.2001, were allegedly barred on June 30, 2000

 

B5. Section 339 of the Criminal Code relates to "legal inflection" and reads as follows:

 

"A judge, other civil servant or an arbitrator, who is guilty in leading or deciding a case or who

is guilty of defrauding the law is punished with a prison sentence of between one and five years."

 

The legislator explains (Art. 19. No. 129, EGBGB), in addition that deliberate or knowing action is not necessary,

but "conditional intent" is sufficient ".

Section 339 of the Criminal Code applies only to judges and applies to the protection and legitimacy of the law

but not to protect the judges. The judicial privilege is not used.

 

B6. The deed can be committed (according to the BGH):

B6.1. through violation of substantive law, for example through the application of invalid laws; or

B6.2.    through incorrect application of the law, for example through a deviation from clear legal norms;

B6.3.    or taking or disposing of a measure not provided for by law;

B6.4.    or by falsifying the facts to which the law is to be applied;

B6.5.    or by violating the obligation to provide information

              or exceeding the judicial discretion,

B6.7.    or issuing an order to be enforced inappropriately prematurely.

B6.8.    The violation of procedural norms can also suffice (BGH 32, 357; 42, 343; 47, 105).

B6.9.    Legal inflection also results from illegal gathering of evidence.

B6.10. or by deliberately "overlooking" applications and some more

                     According to the standard sentences of the BGH, it is necessary that:

B6.11.    "due to the procedural violation the concrete danger of a wrong decision

                 is justified without any advantage or disadvantage having actually occurred ".

                 (BGH 42, pp. 343, 346, 356)

 

                                           The BGH adds:

 

B6.12 "The right is only bowed if the perpetrator is aware and serious Way

                away from law and order ".

  The jurisprudence assumes that     "the flexion of the right by § 339 StGB is more

                                                                              as the violation of binding legal norms ".

B6.13 The intention must be aimed at granting the right in favour or to the disadvantage

             of a party hurt; no special intention is required (BGH 32, 360)

           From the above, Compiling a few of the most important terms, also results in some

           Necessary explanations: first about "conditional intent (and subjective fact):

          (For the BGH contradiction to the "conditional intent" see literature)

B6.14. Conditional intent, to take into account the special decision situation of the judge

            bear the judge's endorsement of the possibility of erroneous legal views

           internalized.

B6.15 Conditional intent also exists if the judge considers the legal incompatibility of a

             Considers decision possible to achieve an appropriate one

             But accepts the result; this does not require a completely foreign motivation.

B6.16 The act is completed with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision.

B6.17 Your legal effectiveness is not important.

B6.18 Decisions that are "void" are also subject to § 339 StGB.

                The plaintiff adds the following sentence:

B6.19 "Decisions that are subsequently overturned by another staff

              fulfill the facts of § 339 StGB. " That is the case here and the sentence is applicable.

 

B7. Now the practices of the accused Mrs Strupp-Müller / Galle / Habich / Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

      Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Hoffmann, was then responsible for the plaintiff's official liability claims,

      depending on the 2b chamber of the LG-D´dorf, shall be in the mirror above Case law analyzed

      and (with "Comments") commented.

                          Conditional intent is sufficient for the legal defense (BGH 40, 276)

 

    "The deed is completed with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision,

     if this directly brings about the effect of a better or worse position of a party or

       can develop through the realization ".

 

For the legal violations of the Strupp-Müller / Galle / Habich / Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Köstner-Plümpe /

Mrs Hoffmann, the fact that the trial 2b o 271/01 and then the appeal dated 18.8.2016, Az 18 U 69/16 (and

then the revision or the NCB to approve the revision), where the criminal offenses (legal violations) committed,

only ended in October 2018, and thus the effects / consequences of the actions are unfolded. (e.g. loss of

damage claims, loss of court fees paid, loss of pension; costs for RAe, etc.); that means among other things

that the offenses are not time-barred.

 

Cases of legal inflections (§ 339 StGB) in LG Düsseldorf decisions and evidence of intent

 

The offenses and the violations of the law are described in the following pages,

provided with legal comments and finally documented with the LG decisions.

 

  1. Case Ms. Strupp-Müller

C1. For the first time, Ms. Strupp-Müller sits on April 4, 2003 in the illegal LG committee of 2b civil

     chamber (Mrs Brückner-Hoffmann/Mrs Strupp-Müller/Mrs Adam) and signs the rejection

     of the PKH for Az 2b o 271/01 applied on February 5, 2001. (Document No. 5)

   Comments:

   She (Ms. Strupp-Müller) had known that the then chairwoman Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll assembled

   staff was illegal and Art. 101 GG, as well as § 75 GVG injured; In addition, Ms. Adam was not a

   member of the 2b civil chamber, and was only an occasional solution because it was also not

   provided for by the business distribution plan (= GVP).

    Brückner-Hoffmann has benefited from the violation of the law / fraud, and about 2 months later

    of LG-D´dorf has been promoted Chairwoman of a Chamber (14c)

    The deliberate criminal offense has been completed and is punishable under § 339 StGB

     with up to 5 years' imprisonment.

 

C2. "The offense was completed with the enactment on April 4, 2003 of the legally unjustifiable one

           Decision because this immediately leads to the plaintiff's disadvantage

            and has also unfolded through the realization ".

       Comments:

       The unlawful decision 4.4.2003 of the unlawful staff has been adopted, and referred

       to several times in later LG / OLG decisions (e.g. OLG-Az 18 W 22/03, OLG Az 11 W 57/03;

       LG Az 2b o 194/07); the offense is accomplished with disadvantages for the plaintiff.

    

C3. On the offense of the above the plaintiff (and here As) responded to women with a request for bias

      of May 5, 2003 against Mrs. Strupp-Müller (Az 2b o 271/01, GA Bl. 268).

     Ms. Strupp-Müller made an official statement on July 14, 2003 on 2b o 268/01;

     Comments:

     It confirms that it has only been a member of the 2b chamber since February 1, 2003, has

     knowledge of the Official liability lawsuits pending at the 2b Chamber, and on April 4. 2003

     they signed the decisions rejecting the PKH on Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 271/01, 2b o 268/01.

    The participation of Ms. Strupp-Müller in the illegal staff on April 4, 2003 is therefore not in dispute

 

C4. On 22 July 2003 the applicant sent a letter to Az 2b o 271/01, Az 2b o 268/01, 2b o 118/99

       with "Justification for maintaining the application for bias against judge Mrs. Strupp-Müller "

       and some evidence for her intention to harm the plaintiff (GA Bl. No. 285),

       and on Aug. 12, 2003, the plaintiff again confirmed Az 2b o 118/99 (also applies to Az 2b o

       268/01 and 2b o 271/01) the exclusion of Mrs. Strupp-Müller (GA Bl. No. 292)

       as well as by letter dated April 26, 2005 to the LG on 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 118/99

      is informed that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Strupp-Müller due to bias remain closed

       (GA Bl. No. 334). All of the above documents Mrs Köstner-Plümpe has kept secret

 

C5. In her official statement Aug. 25, 2004 for all 3 proceedings 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01

          and 2b o 118/99 sent on August 30, 2004 to RA, (Document No. 11), Mrs. Strupp-Müller writes:

     "I have the proceedings LG-D´dorf 2b o 118/99, 268/01 and the present proceedings 2b o 271/01

         processed in compliance with the applicable laws (GA sheet no. 320) (document no. 11)

         

       Comments:

      Another confirmation of the participation of Mrs. Strupp-Müller in the fraud of April 4, 2003.

      Contrary to her assertion, she intentionally violated the applicable laws (Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG, GVP)

      injured to harm the plaintiff to secure a seat as LG presiding judge.

      (See "Maintenance of July 22, 2003 of the application for bias against Strupp-Müller,

                 document No. 7);

 

C6. By letter of 14 April 2005 from the 2b chamber to the plaintiff personally on Az 2b o 271/01

     signed Dr. Drees was informed of the following: "You are hereby informed that an application

       for bias against Ms. Strupp-Müller only in proceedings 2b o 271/01, in the others

      Proceedings have finally been decided on the applications for bias. Is currently

       Ms. Strupp-Müller appointed to this in the procedure 2b o 268/01 with the rest

      PKH application to decide. (GA Bl. No. 330); The above Letter contains advance notice

       a new process fraud, which Ms. Köstner-Plümpe will have to deal with later.

 

C7. Ms. Stockschaleder-Nöll's plan to harm the plaintiff has precise contours at

      the decision on May 11, 2005 on 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Drees/Galle

      The above illegal staff decides on 5 points as summarized below:

  1. The association of the present proceedings with 2b o 268/01 is rejected.
  2. an extension of the deadline set on 7.3.2005 by concluding claim

                             is rejected

      → 3rd. application from 13.8.2004 on delivery of the application according to § 14 No. 3 GKG

                            is rejected

   → 4th. application for bias 5.5.03 against Mrs. Strupp-Müller is rejected as unfounded

  1. Application for bias against Mrs Stöve is rejected as inadmissible. GA Bl. No. 336

Comments:

Up to this point you can see that the application for bias from 5.5.2003 against Ms. Strupp-Müller on

Az 2b o 271/01 and many more (2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01) only on May 11, 2005 on the part of an illegally formed

and incompetent LG committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Drees/Mr. Galle is decided, and Ms. Strupp-Müller

has ineffective discharge. (Document No. 15)

The above LG committee (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Drees/Herr Galle) violated Art. 101 GG and § 47 ZPO on

May 11, 2005 because the Stockschlaeder-Nöll was refused as biased since December 18, 2002 and until a

resolution of January 17, 2008 the application for exclusion was not decided.

In addition, the 2b chamber was not competent for deciding on the application for bias by a chamber member.

(see documents No. 2 and No. 3). She (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) was therefore likely excluded in any decision (§ 47 ZPO).

She has grossly violated the applicable law and harmed the plaintiff.

The offense is recorded according to StGB with up to 5 years in prison

The application for the annulment of the LG decisions signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll since December 18, 2002

to January 17, 2008 and on the part of Mrs. Strupp-Müller from May 5, 2005 until the withdrawal (2008) from the

2b chamber has been sent to the OLG-D´dorf 18. Senate, sent on 2.2.2007 to Az 18 W 23/05 but buried there i.e.

never decided. (see point B6.13, and document no. 24) Offense completed and recorded by the Criminal Code.

In addition, the substitute judge, Galle, was not a member of the 2b civil chamber and was not intended for this

by GVP. He also knew that on May 11, 2005 he participated in an unlawful and non-competent staff; He knew

that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll had been rejected as biased since December 18, 2002 and that the application

for exclusion was not decided; So the discharge granted to Ms. Strupp-Müller on the part of the illegal LG

committee was only theoretical. The participation of Mr. Galle proves the plan to harm the plaintiff;

That is also on the part of StGB provided and punishable.

Different OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate or OLG-18. Senates (without taking into account the illegality

of the LG committee on May 11, 2005) had no legal effect.

Ms. Strupp-Müller was still excluded of every decision on Az 2b o 271/01 until she left the 2b chamber.

 

C8. Mrs. Strupp-Müller commits the next intentional trial fraud to Az 2b o 271/01 with the help

       the judge Engelkamp-Neeser and the judge Galle on Aug. 9, 2007, where she was the chairwoman

      Judge feigns though she is not a presiding judge, and Mr. Galle just an occasional solution to the

     long-planned process fraud, because he was not a member of the 2b chamber, and also not

   intended as a replacement according to GVP. (Document No. 25). The PKH applied for on 9.9.2005

     was arbitrarily rejected after 2 years by the illegal staff Strupp-Müller/Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle

Comments:

On August 9, 2007, the LG committee was unlawful several times and nevertheless the PKH, which was applied

for on September 9, 2005, (after 2 years!) Rejected because of the supposedly lacking prospect of success.

The "instruction to the two girls" (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser) had already been issued by

Stockschlaeder-Nöll and she has latter remotly-controlled the committee.

The intention proves that the above Committee on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll was quickly thrown together,

and Ms. Strupp-Müller knew that on May 11, 2005 the allegation of bias on May 5, 2003 was not legally relieved,

and that the led committee was unlawful on 9.8.2007. The staff had internalized the crime  (Violations of Art. 101 GG,

§§ 75 GVG, § 47 ZPO, BGH case law, StGB).

The renewed participation of Mr. Galle on August 9, 2007 (which had led to the theoretical discharge of Mrs.

Strupp-Müller on May 11, 2005) had to make it clear to her (Mrs. Strupp-Müller), that this was the case (on

August 9, 2007) about a plan to harm the plaintiff, and that it was her promises, if she participate in the fraud,

the seat of the Presiding judge would be safe for her.  The offense is completed and this is recorded by the

Criminal Code with 1 to 5 years' imprisonment.

 The OLG (11th Senate, Az 11 W 15/06 and 18th Senate Az 18 W 23/05) "capped" the offense.

 

 C9. Now it was time for the cost officer HABICH to complete his file / counterfeit.

            On August 29, 2007 Habich added a superfluous note to the contents of the file

            (GA Bl No. 476R, Annex No. 29). See also chapter "Habich"

 

C10. On September 18, 2007 the new decision on Az 2b o 271/01 of the illegally crafted LG- staff

         (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) thus managed by Strupp-Müller, although they

          was not a presiding judge; she also knew (because she worked in the judiciary for over 12 years),

        that the panel created was illegal. The rejected delivery of the complaint is described in the above

         Decision on 18.9.2007;

                Reason: the court fees are not fully paid;

                             the cost officer checked it; still missing € 9,454.69

           Comments:

         The fraud also consists in the deceptive wording that "the cost official checks";

          It is correct that the cost officer does not check, but only one Addition in files

         (after consultation) filed on Aug. 29, 2007 to help the judges defraud i.e.

          to help for refusal to serve the suit. (Document No. 29)

          The cost officer Habich would not have done it without consulting Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

          The unlawful staff claims that "after checking the cost officer Habich" the

          Court fees would not have been paid in full, so the delivery of the suit is refused.

          The offense has been completed and, according to the Criminal Code, is punished with

         up to 5 years in prison.

           That already means that the panel again consists of the same judges on September 18, 2007

           Written in points C7 and C8 apply here analogously.

   

          The confirmations of the prove, that the LG committee is dealing with fraud,

           i.e. full payment of court fees since Dec. 2006 exist in the following documents:

          > LG decision of 15.12.2010 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Keiser/Mrs Mossbrucker/Schwarz

          > the OLG decision from 3.9.2015 signed Malsch/Mrs Glasses/Anger for Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01)

          > the LG final judgment of May 11, 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

               /Mrs Gundlach / Frank

         > in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/

                 /Mrs Kirschner).

      The orchestrated actions on the same date (September 18, 2007) by Ms. Bückner (letter dated

       September 18, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01; Document No. 31) and letter dated September 18, 2007

        from Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser prove that the organizer of the fraud of September 18, 2007 was

         Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

      The result of the rejection on September 18, 2007 of the service for Az 2b o 271/01 was on the one

      hand the delay in serving the lawsuit and the proceedings until September 2010, and on the other

       hand the Increase in court fees due to inflation; The request for payment from Central agency

       Justice Hamm from 27.9.2019 (see B4.4) shows only one disadvantage of the blockade;

       The board has thus brought procedural disadvantages to the plaintiff; the crime is completed

       and punished with imprisonment up to 5 years according to § 339 StGB.

 

C.11. On February 20, 2008 Ms. Strupp-Müller gave to Az 2b o 194/07 (directly connected to Az 2b o

           271/01) a professional statement and claimed that she was no longer concerned with the

           matter (document No. 39).

          Comments:

          The fact that it is a lie, proves that from October 10, 2007 it will not worked more in the 2b

         chamber, as well as the disappearance of several sheets in time until May 2008 from Az 2b o

         271/01 and the immediate complaint of October 10. 2007 against hers resolution of September 18,

         2007 (refusal to serve the suit); So she was busy with manipulation until mid-2008 manipulating

         court records; otherwise she would not have been in the 18th Civil Senate ordered; she helped

           Volker Malsch to "style" files 2b o 271/01.

 

The damaging/ illegal actions of Mrs. Strupp-Müller/Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Hoffmann, also proves

itself in the content-related procedures 2b o 118/99 e.g. Decision of August 24, 2006; PKH rejected without being

dependent on the court fees with reference/reasoning to their decision of 4.4.2003. Decision of August 24, 2006

on Az 2b o 118/99 service delivery rejected; Reference / justification to her decision of 4.4.2003 !!);

Further resolutions on Az 2b o 268/01 and signed for

Az 2b o 194/07 and Az 2b o 250 / 03; Evidence d. Legal violations in this regard on request.

 

  1. Judge Galle's case

D1. For the first time, the name of the judge Galle appears in the illegal LG staff dated

       May 11, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01, to help Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll when issuing one

       absurdly Decision (with announcement of 5 points and including the theoretical discharge

      Strupp-Müller from the accusation of bias) and thus demonstrate that he is, everyone

       Time, ready to step in, if other judges refuse to cooperate with legal violations.

Comments:

The above LG committee (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Drees/Mr Galle) violated Art. 101 GG and § 47 ZPO

on May 11, 2005 because the Stockschlaeder-Nöll was refused as biased since December 18, 2002 and

until 17. Jan. 2008 the application for exclusion was not decided, and to Mr. Galle was everything known.

In addition, the 2b chamber was not responsible for deciding on the application for bias by a chamber member.

It should therefore not be involved in any decision (§ 47 ZPO).

The knowledge of the real conditions would have prevented Mr. Galle from participating in the process fraud

(planned by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll). Nevertheless, he participated in the fraud and thus became an accomplice

to a criminal offense covered by Section 339 of the Criminal Code.

The application for the annulment of the LG decisions signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll since December 18, 2002

to January 17, 2008 and on the part of Mrs. Strupp-Müller from May 5, 2005 until departure (2008) from the

2b chamber has been sent to the OLG-D´dorf to Az 18 W 23/05 on 2.2.2007 and buried there never decided.

 Mr. Galle did not consider that his crime was exposed.

In addition, the substitute judge, Galle, was not a member of the 2b civil chamber and was

not intended for this by GVP.

He also knew that on May 11, 2005 he participated in an unlawful and non-competent staff;

According to GVP, another chamber was responsible with the chairperson and his members;

Ms. Drees was a member of the 2b chamber; He knew that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll had been

rejected as biased since December 18, 2002 and that the application for exclusion was not decided;

He also knew that a discharge to Mrs Strupp-Müller on the part of the illegal LG committee was only theoretical

and could have no legal effect.

Different OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate or OLG-18. Senates (without taking into account the illegality of

the LG committee on May 11, 2005) had no legal effect.

    The crime committed on May 11, 2005 and the penalty provided for it according to § 339 StGB

     is from Drees / Galle / Wedel did not alleviate the remedial decision of June 9, 2005.

               Ms. Strupp-Müller was still excluded until she left the 2b chamber

                 according to § 47 ZPO of every decision on Az 2b o 271/01.

The offense has been completed with the help of Mr. Galle and this is punishable on the part of § 339 StGB

for all parties up to 5 years.

D2.

        "The next action by Judge Galle was on Aug. 9, 2007 to participate on the trial fraud,

          planned by Stockschlaeder-Nöll, to help them succeed.

Comments:

The committee with Ms. Strupp-Müller and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser was already prepared for this purpose; t

he third member of the committee had to deceive the plaintiff. Mr. Galle is elected

on May 11, 2005 had proven that he was ready to intervene against the plaintiff in any planned plot (even without

GVP allocation). On August 9, 2007, the illegal LG committee rejected the PKH for Az 2b o 271/01, which was

applied for on September 9, 2005; allegedly no prospect of success of the lawsuit.

In addition to what is written in point C8, the following is presented here.

Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll's plan to harm the plaintiff, had to go to Judge Galle and describe the details and 

disclose that the cost officer Habich had agreed to "supplement the files of Az 2b o 271/01 with

the increased value in dispute", but with it not noticeable, he would write in a "free back".

At the meeting, the wording for Mr. Habich is then more precisely specified.

At that time, Mr. Galle was satisfied and already had created protection as no member of the 2b civil chamber,

also a Defense alibi against requests for partiality against him, and he has boasted for it.

 

D3. The lawsuit on September 18, 2007 (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) for Az 2b o 271/01

           and the help of the cost official Habich to succeed. (Document No. 30)  

         

       With LG decision of 18.9.2007 of the three above Conspirators have refused to serve the case;

         Justification: The court fees have been checked by the cost officer; he still has an open one

                                  (not yet fully paid) amount, in the amount of € 9,454.69 determined.

      Comments:

     The lawsuit was served in September 2010 (after 4 years of blockade); the 2b chamber has in the

     decision from 15.12.2010 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Keiser / Mrs Moosbrucker /Mr Schwarz and

     in the final judgment of May 11, 2016 (with the participation of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll), as well as

      in the resolution of the 18th Senate of the OLG from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (signed Malsch / Mrs

     Glaeser /Mr Anger) the full payment of court fees confirmed since Dec. 2006. So the organizer -

     Stockschlaeder-Nöll -the process fraud planned by her on September 18, 2007 for Az 2b o 271/01

       was confirmed.

    

    After the "supplement" in the files (GA Bl. 476R) on the part of Mr. Habich, on September 18.

    2007 the staff of the 3 conspirators quickly thrown together to support the decision write.

    

Mr. Galle's fraud can be referred to as already described in point C10,  add the following:

    He has Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll in every procedural fraud or legal violation against the plaintiff

    including year 2019 supported (e.g. August 15, 2019 on Az 2b o 138/19, procedure in direct

    connection with Az 2b o 271/01 see below) and jumped off each time after the signature was given.

    Whether the use was intended / planned by the GVP or not, it has the above Neither particularly

    Interested.

     Especially in the years 2006 to 2009, the plaintiff had no legal assistance. The conspirators

    speculated that the lawsuit of the financially very weak applicant never came to an end

    would be, and all official liability actions with default judgments (= VU) rejected with costs would.

    

   The offense was committed on September 18, 2007 and completed by decision; to this extent § 339

   StGB applies with a planned sentence of up to 5 years' deprivation of liberty for all those involved.

 

  D4. About the judge Galle's entry to Az 2b o 77/08 (proceedings in direct connection with

         Az 2b o 271/01) and via his help (to the procedural fraud / legal violations / intrigue

         thinking and acting) Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, the above Process 2b o 77/08 from her table

         Discard and hand over the work obligation to others (to FG-D´dorf!)

         of the ongoing research on the allegedly "missing" file 2b o 77/08

Comments:

     After the first results, Mr. Galle helped Stockschlaeder-Nöll, who had gotten into trouble,

        and signed a decision on August 8, 2008 or August 7, 2008 on Az 2b o 77/08 with his chamber

        members (Mrs. Vaupel / Mrs. Tigges / Mr. Galle).

        In what quality he wrote the decision on Az 2b o 77/08 and from his "girls" having it signed,

       is not yet clear. The decision and file 2b o 77/08 is "supposed destroyed ";

       it is conviction of the local advertiser that the files 2b o 77/08 at the LG-D´dorf are

        but Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll does not allow the files to be viewed.

 

D5. The application for bias against Ms. Dr. Hoffmann on Az 2b o 203/09 (procedure directly linked

         with Az 2b o 271/01) and the decision of July 14, 2010 by Mr. Galle / Mrs Prote / Mrs. Weitzel

         (the latter, only intern = young judge in trial period)

         Comments:

          You can see how the situation between Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mr. Galle is with one

          "Increased probability of 99%" from Mr. Galle's help Stockschlaeder-Nöll, assess.

         Two facts are striking:

  1. a) Since 2001, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll has received only interns (= young girls without profes-

            sional experience, i.e. in trial period), which was constrain to write negative decisions in the

            matter of the local plaintiff, according to the instructions of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

  1. b) Not a single experienced judge in the 2b chamber (in 20 years of the Lawsuits of the plaintiff);

             One buried the "girls" who have no idea of ​​intrigue had the most difficult tasks or those with

           political explosiveness, and forced them thus to a right-wing violation. The "girls" would have to

           justify any unlawfulness about the place secure with the judiciary.

          The content of the decisions made by Galle is always a relief for those accused Members of the

         2b chamber (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Strupp-Müller/Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser/

          /Mrs. Kostner-Plümpe / Mrs. Hoffmann)

          So it is not surprising that Mr. Galle and his "girls" signed again on July 14, 2010 to Az 2b o 203/09

          the discharge decision for Mrs. Hoffmann, then right hand of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

         You can only know who is the author of the decision suspect. It is striking that the connected

         superordinate EuGVVO and EGBGB Art. 7 from the decision are rejected and only what

         Mrs. Hoffmann has written, has been repeated.

   

D6. Mr. Galle rushes to the help of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll if the PKH application of August 8th, 2019 is

        rejected Az 2b o 138/19 (regarding the annulment of the judgments of 16.3.2011 and 11.5.2016 on

        Az 2b o 271/01); Decision of 15.8.2019 on Az 2b o 138/19 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Renner /

       Galle

        Comments:

       The above The committee is unlawful because the participation of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

       was expressly excluded. Nevertheless, she signs the decision on August 15, 2019.

  

       Fogging the plaintiff with legally complicated or incomprehensible sentences for what

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll was unable to think, the Mr. Galle did.

       

     So in the decision of August 15, 2019 (only 5 days after arrival of the brief with the PKH-Proposal

      dated August 8, 2019) excessive and with only one sentence (1.5 lines), the PKH - for the Offenses

       committed by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann on March 16, 2011 and on

      11.5.2016- rejected. The higher case law is ignored and no BGH / BVerfG

       Decision to justify the rejection.

      One wonders: why did Mr. Galle jump in? The case is not covered by the GVP.

 

  1. Case cost officials Habich

The cost officer HABICH selected by Stockschlaeder-Nöll (only 20 steps separate the offices of the two)

felt like a VIP and was flattered in such an important process fraud against the plaintiff, to help the judges.

He liked the chosen wording.

   He had already made entries in the court files of Az 2b o 271/01, but he did

   could not change, and these old handwritten entries have betrayed him.

    In addition to what is written in points C10, D2 and D3, the following becomes presented:

  

E1. In GA Bl. Nr. 413, at the top, you can see the entry that the court fees for Az

         2b o 271/01 amount to a total of € 21,021.77.

         Therefore, supplementing the files (falsifying the facts) with other values ​​would

         Make the difference clear and noticeable as file manipulation or as file corruption.

         Nevertheless, he (Habich) carried out the file manipulation on August 29, 2007.

         The court fees of € 21,021.77 obviously relate to those from the Stockschlaeder-Nöll

         The dispute was determined on April 21, 2006, when no plan for litigation fraud had been spun.

        The above GA sheet 413 is stamped and signed twice by Mr. Habich i.e. at the July 13, 2006

        and July 20, 2006;

       From the new entry on the GA Bl. 476R, Mr. Habich's resolution is passed on to the plaintiff

       damage. He speculated that files 2b o 271/01 were never in the applicant's hands

       and that he would never see the new contradicting entry in GA Bl. 476R .

       Especially since he felt safe from the protection of the chairwoman Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

    

       The detail is interesting that on April 21, 2006 (only 3 months before, and only 5 leaves

       the GA beforehand) the Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll determined the exact amount in dispute

        at € 1,838,180.46 (GA sheet no. 408) and advises them to consult Mr. Habich.

 

E2. The plot of Aug. 29, 2007 by Mr. Habich with the total amount he falsified € 19,850

       (The installment paid by the plaintiff for the court fees are actually paid 22,200 as Ms. Stregel

       on January 14, 2009 and June 30, 2010, and Ms. Twardon on October 14, 2009 confirms);

       the increased provisionally accepted value in dispute in the amount of € 29,304.89, includes

     all Characteristics of an intentional and inadmissible criminal offense according to § 339 StGB

     with up to 5 years Prison is punished.

 

E3. In addition, the plaintiff repeatedly complained against the decision of September 18, 2007,

     protested against the "alleged error of the cost officer" and asked the staff to consider the correct

     values; The protests have only led to the fact that the task was taken from Habich and from 2008

    Ms. Stregel and then Ms. Twardon signed as a cost officer for the bookings.

      That the above Specify women values ​​other than final payments (one time € 5,892.55 as the rest,

      and a second time € 28,090.04 as total court fees!) is still their secret not ventilated.

     (Document No. 42 and No. 44)

 

  1. Case Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

She was sitting in the audience seats when the plaintiff entered the room and found an empty seat

next to her.

It was noticed only when she got up, she put on her black robe and took a place on the judges staff

for the hearing, Until then, one had only corresponded with one another; it was March 16, 2011.

Comments:

F1. She signed the default judgment of March 16, 2011 on Az 2b o 271/01; She has been around

       for about 4 years Employment (2009-2012 / 13) at the 2b Chamber all other judges sign

       exceeded by illegal decisions, followed by Ms. Brecht.

 

F2. On 23/24. March 2009, Mrs. Hoffmann is happy to participate (and this is proven by the applicant's

       intent damage and undermine the laws) to those of Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mr. Galle organized

       14 lawsuits, the illegally formed staff (Ms. Tigges/Ms. Schmidt /Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann) and

       conspicuously disregards the applicable laws (EGBGB Art. 7), the EU law-talk (EuGVVO Art. 1)

       and the international contracts (FRG-GR). Including that Az 2b o 271/01.

The pattern of legal violations corresponded to the Stockschlaeder-Nöll method; i.e. not to provide

a chairman according to GVP or § 75 GVG, but to create a tripartite staff with "girls", where Mrs. Hoffmann

(as the youngest girl) took over the task (according to Stockschlaeder-Nöll's instructions) to draft / write the

identical 14 resolutions of March 23/24, 2009, and to refute the plaintiff's allegations (collected on the basis of

secret applications and secret emails sent to Judge Seelmann of AG-Essen, a supervisor for the plaintiff with

reservation of consent, to be ordered quickly), then with "not remedial decisions" (= NAB) "ordered" the

OLG-D'dorf; see NAB dated 07/07/2014 on Az 2b o 271/01 or emails.

Of course, she (Mrs. Hoffmann) was happy to do the job and thus won the trust of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

who further violated the law (see also Az 2b o 268/01, 2b o 118/99, 2b o 203/09, 2b o 121/10,

2b o 177/10, 2b o 23/12).

The complaints filed against the 14 decisions of March 23/24, 2009 by the illegal staff (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt /

Ms. Dr. Hoffmann) are even chargeable on the part of the "supermen of the OLG-D´dorf 11th Senate" on 23.9.2009

rejected; The legal violations of the unlawful LG committee concealed. Thus the 2b judges could claim that the Legal

attitudes of the LG judges (on litigation fraud) have all been confirmed by the OLG.

 

F3. On October 12th, 2009, Mrs. Hoffmann on Az 2b o 143/08 the decision of the unlawful

       formed staff without the chairperson responsible according to § 75 GVG (violation also against

       101 GG) Engelkamp-Neeser / Mrs Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Dr. Schims (the latter intern, i.e. without

       LG qualification according to the business distribution plan of the LG from 10.1.2010, it has

       nevertheless as LG Judge signed and the protected title misused): Result as ordered:

              the PKH application is rejected because of the intended legal action

                                  doesn't have a reasonable chance of success.

 

F4. On June 25, 2010, the PKH passed a decision rejecting Az 2b o 154/08 of the illegally formed

       Committee led by the pseudo-chairwoman Mrs. Hoffmann/Mrs. Pietroschinsky/Mrs.Henkefend

       and, as usual, violates § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG; Result as ordered:

        The intended legal action does not offer a sufficient prospect of success, § 114 ZPO

       (no matter how many violations or violations or legal defaults of the LG / OLG judges

        are shown / proven by the plaintiff) no prospect of success! the privileges of

        Judges are secured)

 

F5. In proceedings 2b o 118/99, Ms. Hoffmann sits on July 12th, 2010 at the illegally formed u. decide

      the committee of Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Weitzel (without LG qualification)

      and the requested PKH rejects because of supposedly no sufficient prospect of success.

      Mrs. Hoffmann had known that Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll refused because of bias and none

      legally binding decision had been made. She felt strong enough from protection of Stockschlaeder-

      Nöll, who previously relieved her of another exclusion request.

 

F6. LG-sentence from 9.9.2010 to Az 2b o 129/08 signed Mrs Keiser/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs. Baumeister

            with what the application for bias from November 13, 2008 and December 18, 2008 against

            Stockschlaeder-Nöll as unfounded rejected; The girls did not want to know anything about

           Art. 101 GG and § 75 GVG.

 

F7. On an application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Galle / Mrs Hoffmann from September 21, 2010.

        The rejected Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Hoffmann have no regard for Az 2b o 271/01

        taken and on March 16, 2011 sat on the judges' podium and signed the decree Default judgment

         on Az 2b o 271/01. Again, violation of § 47 ZPO and Art. 101 GG

 

F8. On November 15th, 2010, Mrs. Hoffmann participated again in the illegal committee

       Mrs. Hoffmann/Mrs. Keiser /Mrs. Moosbrucker and rejects the PKH for Az 2b o 177/10.

       It makes its own decisions in an absolutely forbidden manner (without the date of the exclusion

       to name the request !!) and rejects the exclusion request (which one) ?? with an untrue

      Assertion i.e. that she wasn't involved. Here, too, violation of Art. 101 GG and § 75 GVG.

 

F9. In order to harm the plaintiff, Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann passed a decree on February 17, 2012

        Illegal dispute resolution decision on Az 2b o 198/11 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

       / Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Brecht; Disputed value determination € 965,068.77 incl. € 349.65

       In PKH proceedings (such as Az 2b o 198/11) no value in dispute may be set (see ZPO);

       the LG committee already knew, but still made the decision; after extensive

        Correspondence in the context of the complaint raised had to overturn the LG decision,

For the multiple and deliberate crimes / violations on part of Mrs. Hoffmann the with decree

of the 14 illegal decisions of March 23/24, 2009, as well as of the other decisions of October 12, 2009,

November 15, 2010, February 17, 2012, § 339 of the Criminal Code stipulates penalties of up to 5 years.

On the criminal complaint from 10.10.2010 at the public prosecutor's office D'dorf Az 40 Js 7240/10

and reference is made to the content of the PKH / lawsuit LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 7/11.

 

  1. Köstner-Plümpe case

     

The short stay of the judge Köstner-Plümpe at the 2b civil chamber was with the settlement (in the sense of

the Stockschlaeder-Nöll) of the then acute cases of the plaintiff in the Az 2b o 271/01, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 118/99 ,

2b o 194/07, 2b o 77/08 and 2b o 67/08

     

Comments:

G1. For the first time, she headed an illegal staff on January 17, 2008 on Az 2b o 271/01 (Köstner-

       Plümpe / Mrs. Vaupel / Mrs. Schmidt) and on the one hand with reference to the "coiffed file"

       and on the other hand based on notes by Mrs. Drees from April 14tMr. 2005 (see C6) and Mrs.

       Engelkamp-Neeser from 9.8.2007 GA Bl. 477 (see A10) exonerates Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from

       the accusation of Bias from December 18, 2002.

 

     With the first 2.5 lines in the above Decision of January 17, 2008 takes over the illegal staff

     (Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt) the assertion of Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser from

     9.8.2007 that the plaintiff filed a partiality application dated 18.12.2002 for the first time on

     29.8.2007 would have submitted;

     she stubbornly remains silent and does not mention the plaintiff's 17 letters / memories

     to decide on the exclusion request of December 18, 2002 on Az 2b o 271/01.

     Neither does she mention the plaintiff's file letter, stating that the same Application of December

   18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll for Az 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 268/01 was decided.

 

G2. There is reasonable suspicion that the rapporteur's instruction of 28.7.2003 Stöve,

       repeated also in GA Bl. 289 (letter of complaint dated July 25, 2003), "of the bias

      request to make two copies", "one for Az 2b o 268/01 and 2b o 271/01 ") is done, but

      later the file on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll "styled" and the "request for bias from

      December 18, 2002 "is removed from the file. That was the typical action of Stockschlaeder-Nöll:

      to take incriminating documents from the files.

 

G3. The decision text reveals the infringement committed by the unlawful

       Committee (deliberate ignoring of the files or disregarding the file contents)

  

     In the second paragraph (10 lines) the BGH and BayObLG set general case law sentences

      accepted;

          In the third paragraph (8 lines !!) the plaintiff is accused of any objective evidence

         and that he is exhausted in unsubstantiated complaints.

         The last 1.5 lines mention that all LG decisions have been confirmed by the OLG.

         Ms. Köstner-Plümpe obviously caressed the ears of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

         at the same time, the OLG recommended to stick to the earlier decisions.

 

G4. That the requests for annulment of the decisions signed by the Stockschlaeder-Nöll asked

       several times have not been decided to this day, the illegal LG committee did not bother.

 

G5. Especially for the gathering of the other and co-signing girls Köstner-Plümpe the responsibility.

G6. So it is not to be excused that Köstner-Plümpe again on the illegal committee on May 28,

       2008 to Az 2b o 194/07 (Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser/ Mrs Köstner-Plümpe / Mrs Tigges) sits and

      the PKH application rejected. She had known that the staff violated Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG and

       violates GVP.

 

Ms. Köstner-Plümpe's crimes committed with the adoption of the unlawful decisions of January 17, 2008

on Az 2b o 271/01 and ignoring the content of the file is a falsification of the facts, while the legal violations

 of Art. 101, § 75 GVG and GVP in the above Decisions represent serious criminal offenses, for which punishable

penalties are provided by Section 339 of the Criminal Code.

For the time being, we will not report any further legal violations in the other Az.

 

The authority is asked to send an Az here soon.

 

The undersigned is available at any time for further evidence; especially about the

Weight the seriousness of the legal violations / legal defenses of the individual persons,

so thata public trial against the accused can take place before the judge's court.

Sincerely yours

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Annexed

 the LG / OLG decisions, LG / OLG judgments, official statements mentioned in the text,

 Invoices, court files (= GA) sheets, the applicant's briefs, LG orders,

LG notifications, reminders, requests for bias, complaints of inaction,

Evidence of legal fraud and legal fraud on the part of the LG / OLG judges

 

Attachments to the criminal complaint dated 16.1.2020 (chronologically ascending)

  1. LG-D´dorf annulment decision of 29.11.2001 Az 2b o 118/99 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

                 Goldschmidt-Neumann / Schmidt-Kötters

  1. Recommendation from 13, 2002 to Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01 to Mrs

                  Stockschlaeder-Nöll - to explain as self-consciousness of Bias

  1. Application for bias from December 18, 2002 to Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01

                  against Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

  1. Reminder from Jan. 13, 2003 to Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01 due to bias

                   refused Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to submit a professional statement

  1. LG decision of 4.4.2003 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Brückner-Hoffmann / Strupp-Müller / Mrs Adam

                  (PKH-rejection)

  1. Application for bias from 5.5.2003 on Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01 against

                   Mrs. Strupp-Müller

  1. Grounds for the maintenance of the application for partiality of May 5, 2003 against Strupp-Müller
  2. Letter of July 25, 2003 to the application for bias from December 18, 2002 against Mrs.

          Stockschlaeder-Nöll (Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll remains excluded; rapporteur's note of 28 July 2003)

  1. Letter from August 12, 2003 to the application for bias from December 18, 2002 against Ms.

                 Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Strupp-Müller

  1. Letter / reminder dated December 10, 2003 Az 2b o 271/01, applications for partiality dated

                December 18, 2002 on Az 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 268/01 already passed; not yet decided

               for 2b o 271/01

  1. Ms. Strupp-Müller's official statement on Az 2b o 271/01 of Aug. 25, 2004
  2. Order from 30.8.2004 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Drees regarding bias Strupp-Müller and

                  Stockschlaeder-Nöll

  1. LG letter from April 14, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Drees regarding bias Strupp-Müller
  2. Reminder from Aug. 26, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01 that Mrs Strupp-Müller and Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                         Stay excluded because of bias

  1. LG decision of May 11, 2005 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Drees / Galle

                       Decision on 5 points including biased Strupp-Müller

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from 9.6.2005 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Drees / Galle / Wedel

                       immediate complaint against LG decision 11.5.2005 to the OLG.

  1. Application from Apr. 14, 2006 to annul the resolutions on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-

                       Nöll from Dec. 2002 to Apr. 2006 (due to undecided bias on December 18, 2005)

  1. GA sheet no.408, calculation of the value in dispute 1,838,180.46 € to Az 2b o 271/01 from

                        21.4.2006 Stockschlaeder-Nöll

  1. GA sheet no.413, determination of court fees € 21,021.77 for Az 2b o 271/01 dated 13/20 July

                          2006 on the part of cost officials HABICH

  1. LG decision of 24.8.2006 Az 2b o 268/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Elle / Frizzled Müller

                          (PKH application from 9.9.2005 rejected)

  1. Complaint of inaction from October 3, 2006 Az 2b o 271/01 due to an unsolved decision

                          Application for annulment of decisions signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll since

                         December 18, 2002

  1. Appeal dated December 21, 2006 for inaction by the 2b chamber or for non-decision

                           Application for annulment of decisions signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll etc

  1. List of resolutions of January 20, 2007 signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

                          Strupp-Müller on Az 2b o 271/01

  1. LG announcement from 2.2.2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 that the listing from 20.1.2007 to OLG Az

                            18 W 23/05 have been sent

  1. LG decision of 9 Aug. 2007 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle

                              PKH application rejected on 9.9.2005

  1. ruling of 9 Aug. 2007 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Engelkamp-Neeser; no application for bias

                             found on December 18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll in files 2b o 271/01.

  1. Reminder / complaint dated Aug 12, 2007 Az 2b o 271/01 for service of the claim and for

                             undetermined bias Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

  1. Forwarding of 29 Aug. 2007 of the two requested documents from 11/13/2002 and of

                             December 18, 2002 with application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll

  1. GA Bl. Nr. 476R Entry from Aug. 29, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 by the cost officer HABICH

                          about provisionally accepted amount in dispute in the amount of 5,374,315 DM

                           and open balance for court fees in the amount of € 9,454.69

  1. LG decision of 18.9.2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle;

                                                       Complaint delivery refused

                              Reason: According to cost officials, an amount of 9,454.69 is still open

  1. LG announcement dated 18.9.2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Bückner dass;

                  According to cost officials the court fees have not yet been paid in full.

  1. GA sheet no. 498 entry from Sept. 18, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 by the judge Engelkamp-Neeser:

                          The cost officer has checked and found that the court fees

                                         are not fully paid

  1. Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll's official statement on Az 2b o 271/01 of September 18, 2007

         (Date of the illegal decision signed by Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle)

         Evidence of Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll's lie regarding the request for partiality dated December

       18, 2002 and Preparation of the next trial fraud by Köstner-Plümpe on January 17, 2008 (GA Bl. 492)

  1. Questions from October 3, 2007 to LG-2b Chamber: why is the complaint 2b o 271/01 not served?

           Why the requests for cancellation do not concern the decisions taken by Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

           Strupp-Müller are decided?

               What about the immediate complaint of August 31, 2007 against a decision of August 9, 2007?

  1. Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser's official statement on Az 2b o 194/07 dated November 12, 2007;

           Proof of the lie due to pressure from Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll; "in the submitted to her

           She (Engelkamp-Neeser) allegedly has no application for partiality dated December 18, 2002

           found "and expresses the assumption that the application for partiality for the first time in

           December 18, Years 2007 would be posed. The reminders / complaints in the files are

           swept half of the carpet.

  1. Reminder dated Dec. 12, 2007 regarding the decision on requests for annulment regarding

            resolutions.Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Strupp-Müller on Az 2b o 271/01

  1. Reminder of January 7, 2008 on Az 2b o 194/07 to the decision on the request for partiality of

            December 18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll and that to Az 2b o 118/99 and Az 2b o 268/01

             is already decided

  1. LG decision of 17 January 2008 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Köstner-Plümpe / Mrs Vaupel / Mrs

               Schmidt Rejection application against Stockschlaeder-Nöll dated December 18, 2002 as

                 unfounded designated (GA sheet no.529)

  1. Mrs Strupp-Müller's official statement on Az 2b o 271/01 of 20 February 2008

                 "It is said that she would no longer be involved in the matter since November 1, 2007"

  1. LG decision of May 28, 2008 Az 2b o 194/07 signed Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser/Mrs Köstner-Plümpe/

                / Mrs Tigges

               "PKH application of 6 July 2007 rejected as unfounded;

                insufficient prospect of success "

  1. LG decision of May 28, 2008 Az 2b o 77/08 signed Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser / Fr.

                                / Kostner-Plümpe          "PKH application rejected as unfounded;

  1. Official statement of 7 January 2009 by Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll on 11 Az and below

             2b o 118/99, 2b o 271/01, 2b o 194/07, 2b o 77/08, given because of the uncovered

             secret requests to initiate a supervision procedure and emails to judge Seelmann

             of the AG-Essen. Overloading the court with applications etc

             only two resolutions on Az 2b o 271/01 and Az 2b o 194/07

  1. decree dated 14.10.2009 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Stregel dass;

             are paid € 22,200; The advance for the value in dispute DM 5,374,315 is € 28,090.04

  1. LG decision of 22.10.2009 Az 2b o 203/09 signed Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser /

                                / Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann

               "PKH application rejected as unfounded;

                 Not a sufficient chance of success "

  1. Order from June 30th, 2010 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Stregel dass;

             are paid € 22,200; still to pay € 5,892.55

  1. Official statement by Dr. Hoffmann on Az 2b o 203/09 from March 22, 2010

                              "She doesn't feel biased"

  1. LG decision of 14.7.2010 Az 2b o 203/09 signed Galle / Mrs Prote / Mrs. Weitzel (the latter

                               Intern, i.e. Trial judge)

                      "Application for bias from November 17, 2009 against Dr. Hoffmann

                          rejected as unfounded ".

  1. ​​LG decision from July 19, 2010 to Az 2b o 121/10 signed Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs. Prote/Mrs. Weitzel

           (judge, without LG-Qualification);   (Az separated from 2b o 271/01); PKH-rejection.

             Violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG etc

  1. LG decision from 9.9.2010 to Az 2b o 129/08 signed Mrs Keiser/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs. Baumeister,

                       with which the application for bias also from 13.11.2008 and 18.12.2008 against

                        Stockschlaeder-Nöll is rejected as unfounded.

  1. LG decision of November 15, 2010 Az 2b o 177/10 signed Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser /

                     Mrs Moosbrucker

                     "Application for bias from 17, 2009 against Dr. Hoffmann as unfounded

                       rejected "." Nemo judex in causa sua "is unknown to the "girls" above

  1. LG decision from 17.2.2012 Az 2b o 198/11 sign. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs.Brecht;

                 unlawful determination of the value in dispute. Ignoring the ZPO is not a crime for the girls

  1. OLG decision of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Mr Malsch / Mrs Glaeser/Mr Anger

                   Process fraud by manipulation / addition / change of legal texts BGB a.F.

                   to come to the result ordered by LG that the claims for damages

                     would have been statute-barred on July 31, 2006

  1. LG final judgment of May 11, 2016 Az 2b o 271/01 sign. Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Fr.Gundlach/Frank

                    the claims for damages were allegedly barred on July 31, 2006

                    Process fraud in connection with the process fraud of the OLG-D´dorf to Az 18 W 1/13

                   from 03/09/2015

  1. OLG decision of 30.8.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser

                    the claims for damages were allegedly barred on June 30, 2000

                    Process fraud by arbitrary suppression of facts and falsification of files

  1. BGH decision of May 24, 2018 Az III ZR 332/17 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Herrmann / Seiters /

                 / Reiter / Mrs. Liebert / Mrs. Boettcher; The NCB against the OLG-D´dorf judgment of

                 October 18, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 is rejected; The PKH application for the NCB is rejected;

                  Litigation and capping of legal defaults and litigation fraud LG / OLG-D´dorf judges

                  to Az 2b o 271/01, to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 and to OLG-Az 18 U 69/16.

  1. BVerfG decision of September 20, 2018 on Az 2 Bvr 1840/18

              The constitutional complaint against BGH III ZR 332/17 etc will not

                accepted for decision; signed Voßkuhle / Kessal-Wulf / Maidowski

  1. LG decision of 15.8.2019 on Az 2b o 138/19 signed Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Renner / Galle

               The PKH application from August 8, 2019 is rejected; insufficient prospect of success !!

  1. Invoice dated September 27, 2019 of the Central Paying Agency Justice in Hamm for € 245.69

       as an open balance for court fees for the lawsuit 2b o 271/01.

Last modified on Sunday, 02 February 2020 14:50

                               Notice: the follow article is not the last; after reply of General Attorney of HAMM the reader shal be informed

                                                    For errors in this translation (from German to English) please inform the author   

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen-Kettwig

  1. Sept. 2019

 

Attorney General in Hamm

Haßlerstr. 53

59065 HAMM

 

Re: Complaint against the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Essen, of 28.8.2019

        Signed ObStAnw (= superior of public prosecutor) Mr. KALI, Az (= File Number) 25 UJs 41/19,

                                    received 04. Sept. 2019

Dear Madam,

the undersigned (= the injured in his legal interests from the reported or committed illegality of the single judge in

the 7th and 10th Chamber  of the LG-Essen) defends himself against the above Decision of 28.8.2019 of the ObStAnw

(= superior public attorney) Mr. KALI, of the public prosecutor of City Essen, whereby the commencement of investigations

under §§ 152, Abs. 2 and 170 Abs. 2 StPO  (= Penal procedure law)  against the single judge of the LG-Essen the 7th

and 10th Civil Chamber, is rejected.

The decisions of the LG judge and of the Essen public prosecutor also violate the public trust in the judiciary.

The reading of the above Decision 28.8.2019 reveals that the criminally relevant facts on the part of the author

Mr. Kali have not been approximately treated, and also persons are named, which were not even hinted in the

very short entry of 21 July 2019 to the Minister of Justice NRW. 

The faulty mixing of persons and groups is first attacked.

 

The main subject of the law (i.e. bone of contention) is:

 

whether in a PKH (=demand for legal aid) application procedure at the district court, with a dismissed because

of bias of judges, and then with appeal proceedings before the OLG (= court of appeal) against the rejection of

the immediate appeal against the LG-decision (with even  hearings/censure against the (OLG) Higher Regional

Court decision) conduct to one Fee, that the PKH seeker has to pay.

After that, is the question of criminal liability of the LG-single judge according to § 339 StGB ( = Penal Law) to clarify,

if whose decisions contradict the ZPO (= Code of civil procedure) and the GKG (=Court Costs Act) and the PKH

seeker have unmistakably pointed out on the contradictions.

 

The fact

The accused single judge(s) of the 7th and 10th Civil Chamber represented in the issued resolutions the point of view

that the fee was incurred, and this the PKH seekers to the debt-driving court cash (first to Düsseldorf and then to

the OGV-Essen (OGV = court´s upper bailiff of the city Essen) must pay. The decisions of the single judge are

challenged, but have not been successful.

The decisions of the individual judges are charged with costs and the latter attempted to collect the ZZSJ-Hamm

with a workmanship. These last costs of the LG-Essen (= district court of city Essen) decisions, developed in a

dispute over the fictitious costs (fee) with the OLG (= court of appeal),

as well as also the fictitious fee (with the OLG), are the subject of the complaint to the Minister

of Justice. (ZZSJ = Central Paying Authority of Justice)

The undersigned is unwavering in holding that the PKH procedure (with its complaint and

hearings or censures) is completely free, and has provided evidence from the ZPO and GKG.

The different and contradictory OLG decisions (see, for example, decision of 21.11.2017

to OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 signed Mr Thole / Mrs Engels /Mr Böcker, or of 12.4.2017,

Az 11 W 8/17, or of 20.10.2016 ,Az 11 W 45/16, or of 20.8.2018, Az 11 W 39/18, or of 10.9.2018,

Az 11 W 35/18) were the Cause of the dispute, and then the decisions of the single judge of the

7th Chamber, for example from 10.7.2018, Az 7 T 142/18 and of the 10th Chamber of the LG-Essen

4.12.2017, Az 10 T 284/17) represents a criminal offense in sense of (§ 331 StGB or after) § 339 StGB.

Most of above Resolutions of the OLG-Düsseldorf 11-Senate and the LG-Essen postpone the issue

of dispute, namely from the PKH procedure to § 97 ZPO, valid for advocate proceedings and the

recovery laws. 

Sometimes  reference is made to the amount in dispute on the merits to determine the fee.

So most of the contested resolutions are concerned with which §§ and by what law and when costs

were due and then according to which §§ of which laws the fees can / must be operated.

Although the authors of the resolutions sometimes mention decisions of the (BGH =) Federal Supreme Court

of Germany  in favour of the views of the PKH seeker and of the needy, they subsequently call for "analogy"

in accordance with § 97 ZPO  (ZPO = Code of Civil Procedure)

However, decided to pay the disputed fees of the completely free PKH procedure without explain in

Reasons the term "analogy". This is neither convincing nor legal.

In addition, the bank attachment for the execution of the unlawful LG-Essen decisions is a criminal offense,

for which is not responsible the subordinate legal personnel, due to the task description of the organization place.

The authors (individual judge) of the illegal resolutions are liable to the full extent for the thereby committed

violation of the laws, the resulting complaint, as well as for the violation the privacy rights of the signatory.

Independently of above Facts must not go unmentioned that the pressure on the signer only then

(in 2014) started and sharpened in the years 2017-2019, after which it became unequivocally clear that

the undersigned his official liability action at the LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01, the court fees had paid in full

(in instalments) and had instructed a RA, despite the legal obstacles imposed on him by the LG-judges (after

6 postponements of the negotiation date vAw (=ex officio) and after 4 years blockade of the service of

lawsuit of the process 2b o 271/01 to the defendant).

So one tried with inconspicuous collateral actions to achieve the failure of the oral proceedings at OLG-Düsseldorf

fixed for 27.9.2017; because for this Az (2b o 271/01), LG and OLG-Düsseldorf disagreed as to what statute of

limitations the claim could be dismissed.

(see www.sartoros-dr-ing.de, click district court Düsseldorf, then LG 2b o 145/19 part 2)

To increase the pressure the OLG-11th senate needed accomplices, who found in the court cash register Düsseldorf

(Mr. Enseleit) and then in the single judge Mrs. Weber and finally in the single judges (Koss and Ernst) of the 7th

and 10th Chamber of the LG-Essen,.

 

Reason

 

That, the collector staff (of the ZZSJ-Hamm, or the OGV) and other judicial persons (of AG-Essen = magitrate´s court

of the city Essen), to the entry  of 21.7.2019 sent to the Minister of Justice were not named, justify the above objection

to the mixing, which led the author (Mr Kali) to refuse to initiate investigations against the single judges of the LG-Essen

and thus spared the real perpetrators of the criminal acts.

The indicated offense of the single judge of the LG-ESSEN consists in the violation of the substantive right, and /

or by wrong application of law and thus deviation from clear legal norms

  • §§ 114 ff of the ZPO, § 1 GKG, and About § 48 Rnr 5 of the GKG. (RNr = margin Number)

Provisions of PKH are prevailed of the GKG (see Hartmann, GKG, § 1, Rnr 16)

(see LG-Essen, resolution of 4.12.2017)

There is a reasonable suspicion (and that was the task of the prosecutor of city Essen, to investigate

based on the files of the settled procedures  at the OLG-Düsseldorf and of the LG-Essen,!) that the individual

judges displayed agreements with court cash Düsseldorf, and with the OLG judge about the initiation of the

proceedings, as well as to verify that the guilty verdict are incompatible with the actual findings and legal position.

Thereby by initiating the proceedings at the AG / LG-Essen against the signatory because of the

fictitious costs (see attachments, for example, appeals of 4.12.2017 referring to LG-Essen Az 10 T 284/17),

incurred at the Higher Regional Court in the context of the PKH procedure, is its procedural status and its public /

social / economic situation of the signatory deteriorates (and violates the privacy rights).

The individual judges displayed consciously and deliberately violated the duty of disclosure, once

in the application of incorrect and faulty legal norms (see, for example, Order of 10.7.2018 on LG-Essen

Az 7 T 142/18 Page 2 and 3), as well as in the refusal of the remission of the costs, and again in the Order of

an arrest warrant and afterwards with the given approval  to the bank attachment of 28.6.2019 because

of the fictitious costs.

The evidence provided by the free PKH-procedure, including the independent procedure for

refusing a person of justice, has not been considered by the single judge, (even though they say otherwise)

and thus violate Art. 103 GG (right to be heard). (GG= basic law of Germany)

They reiterate what applies to advocate processes, and thus prepare the alleged erroneous

application of the law (which is not punishable) as a relief alibi to blind the public prosecutor.

 

Art. 97 GG ensures that a breach of law can exist only if a decision with Rules are incompatible.

 

The decisions of the individual judge of the LG-Essen, 7th and 10th Chamber are not compatible neither

with § 3 or § 6 or § 9 or § 22 or § 29 GKG  (or of the justice law for collection of debts) or with the KV 1700,

or with KV 1812) and also neither with § 97 ZPO nor with "§ 97 ZPO analogue".

The faulty OLG-decisions are based amongst other things to § 97 ZPO, which § only applies

to advocate cases. An application of the "§ 97 ZPO analog" is not found in the whole ZPO.

This is repeatedly reported to the LG-judges in the complaints and hearing complaints

but the judges represent what they habitually use in advocate processes.

 

In this respect, for the denounced persons, the judges immunity cannot be used.

 

After all, even the judges are subject to the laws. (BverfG = Constitutional court of Germany)

From the above Facts result that the attack is given "from the inside" against the legal validity,

because decisions are made by the individual judge of the LG-Essen, which under no one

material-legal point of view are justifiable.

The contested LG-Essen decisions are only compliant with the requirements of OLG-Düsseldorf,

and that makes realistic the assumption / estimation about agreements.

The realistic estimation is thereby strengthened, taking into account what "experience" the signer

have suffered with the tax office of city Mettmann since 1977 to 2006 and afterwards with the LG / OLG /

BGH (2001-2019)  and described this in the short complaint of 21.7.2019 to the Minister of Justice.

Only with process fraud (at the FG / LG / OLG), which were "capped or covered" by the Attorney General

of Düsseldorf, the accused reached a provisional satisfaction, and then take revenge against the signer, because

he has made public their illegality and arbitrariness.

The 11th Senate of the OLG-Düsseldorf among other things has tried with more than 5 different reasons to

justify the claim  (of Mrs Engels, of Mrs Reupert, of Mr Hoffmann, etc.), (including the Use

 

of "stating the value of the merits of the main process, but which does not exist in a PKH procedure !!! "

 

The OLG-intention to rush the court cash register of Düsseldorf, to determine a high sum as due costs, and

to burden / to hunt !! the signer, it is obvious that they intended the oral negotiation of Az 2b o 271/01 will

not take place at OLG-Düsseldorf fixed for 27.9.2017 ); These different contradictory / arbitrary decisions have been

sent as a copy to the single judge of the 7th and 10th Senate of LG-Essen.

Taking into account the file content and the issue of disputes, Mr. Kali would have to initiate the investigations

about the Denounce.

Unfortunately, it looks like his decision corresponds to a solidarity with the accused judges.

 

It is here requested to approve the application and to investigate the designated judges

appertained to the 7th and 10th Civil chamber of the LG-Essen i.e. investigate the indictment

 

Further evidence could be provided on request.

With best regards

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Equipment (sorted chronologically descending)

  1. Attachment and transfer order of the ZZSJ-Hamm from 13.6.2019 to the bank for 573.42 €
  2. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 35/18 Decision of 10.9.2018 signed Mr Thole / Mrs Engels /Mr Böcker;

                                                      Cost decision of 12.7.2018 cancelled

  1. LG-Essen Az 7 T 142/18 Acc. 31.8.18 signed single judge Koß,

                                                     recovery according to § 1 I 4 Nr 4 JBeitrG (= law for recovery of debts)

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 39/18 Decision of 20.8.2018 signed Mrs Engels / Mrs Wolf /Mr Wienecker

                                                   A decision on the court costs is not prompted

  1. LG-Essen Az 7 T 142/18 Acc. 10.7.2018 signed single judge Koß,

                                                   Cost decision follows from § 97 I ZPO

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 Acc./Notification of 9.7.2018 signed Mrs Reimann;

                                       Costs 120, - € are incurred and payable according to §§ 1, 3, 6, 9, 29 Nr. 1 GKG

  1. LG-Essen Az 7 T 284/17 Decision of 4.12.2017 signed single judge Mrs Weber,

                                                Priority application of PKH regulations

                                                apply to those of the GKG; Fixed fees regardless of the price

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 resolution of 21.11.2017 signed Mr Thole / Mrs Engels / Mr Böcker;

                                              censure from 6.11.2016, rejected with fee charged.

                                              For the appeal proceedings arises according to § 3 GKG a fee

                                              which is to be borne by the complainant according to § 97 ZPO.

                                              For the rejection of the interrogatory, a fee arises secondly § 3 GKG,

                                              which according to § 97 ZPO has to bear "analogously" the PKH seeker

9th OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 8/17 resolution of 12.4.2017 signed Mr Thole / Mrs Engels /Mr Böcker;

                                              censure of 1.4.2017 rejected for a fee;

                                              The decision on costs is made according to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO "analogue"

  1. LG (District court Düsseldorf paying agency); Enforcement notice of 3.4.2017 (Mr. Enseleit)

                                                                  for 185, - € regarding OLG Az 11 W 16/2014

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 Letter of 18.1.2017 signed Mrs Engels; Contestation of

                                                       Cost decision according to § 99 Abs. 1 ZPO is out of the question

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 Letter from 13.1.2017 signed Hofmann to ZZSJ-Hamm;

                                                         Collection measures initially suspended

13th OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 letter of 8.12.2016 signed Mrs Engels; PKH appeal proceedings

                                                        charged with court fees; Reference to Zöller ZPO § 118 Rnr 30

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 45/16 resolution of 20.10.2016 signed Mr Thole / Mrs Engels /Mr Böcker;

                                                     Complaint value: value of the main issue in Process Az 2b o 137/16

  1. OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 16/14 Letter from 7.8.2014 signed Mr Hofmann;

                                                       Court fee according to § 9 GKG

  1. Court cash register Düsseldorf; Enforcement Notice of 10.7.2014 for 60, - €

                                                   regarding OLG 11 W 16/14

Last modified on Tuesday, 08 October 2019 15:33

 

Hier follows the second Part of criminal complains against Judges of OLG-Düsseldorf and of LG-Düsseldorf, 

with decription of the crimes of mentioned Judges in Part one (Mrs Stein, Mrs Fuhr, Mrs Glaeser, Mrs Kirschner)

and in addition the description of the crimes of Judges of first instance Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Mrs Gundlach

and others. The report will be completed later with Copies of the Judgemens and resolutions,also of

No-Remedy-decision (=Instructions for blinds) 

 

  1. Case Mrs. Stein

D1. In addition to above described Crimes of Mrs. Fuhr and Mrs. Glaeser, for which Mrs. Stein

     signed, Mrs Stein bears the responsibility also for the multiple distortions of the facts

     through the intentional lies of the two women (Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser), as well as for

       the legal infringements in the decisions signed by it and judgment of 18.10.2017.

 

D2. The distortion of the facts concerns i.a. the suppression of the facts that the whole

       2001, in the pleadings of the Advocate only of "action" and "claims" or "action with

        PKH application of the same date" or "Plaintiff" is read, which the OLG Panel

       has been silent;

       and in this sense only by PKH application of 5.2.2001 on the part of the Higher Regional Court

       (Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner) is spoken. The Advocate letter of 17.7.2003 (GA Bl.

       283) that the Advocate has filed an UNCONDITIONAL ACTION on 5.2.2001 is nowhere in the

       facts or in the Reasons mentioned; So neither in the LG ruling 11.5.2016 nor in the (OLG) Higher

     Regional Court decisions 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 or 30.8.2017 and also not mentioned in the

       OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16.

 

        Hiding is not an "accidental mistake or overlook of the document" but targeted

        maneuvers to circumvent the "legal consequences of unconditional action" and thus

       the Plaintiff to harm. The deliberate and punishable act of the LG / OLG bodies is of

  • § 339 Penal Code covered and provides for imprisonment of 5 years.

D3. The "notice of the new claims filed on 29.12.2001 arrived to the court on 31.12.2001"

        prove a interrupt of "statute of limitations" according to the Civil Code a.F.

       The fact that the newly filed claims are made known to the (OFD=) Supervision of

     revenue-offices Düsseldorf, proves one Letter from the OFD dated 27.2.2002

       signed Nissen (GA Bl. 168)

      All mentioned Panels (LG / OLG) have concealed the "recast claims of 29.12.2001"

      and mention only the PKH application of 5.2.2001, in order to conclude that no

      unconditional claim on 5.2.2001 or according to Civil Code a.F. until 31.12.2001.

     (OLG, Urt. Page 24)

      The offense incriminates all signatories of the LG / OLG-PKH rejecting decisions and

      Judgments on LG-Az 2b o 271/01, as well as OLG Az 18 U 69/16 and connected processes

 

D4. The most conspicuous process fraud committed in page 23 (last line) of the OLG judgment

      of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 (version of ruling 30 pages), betrays the influence of Mrs.

     Glaeser, but the offense was aware of all the signatories of the OLG ruling of 18.10.2017.

     In page 23, where the panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) the process fraud

     with the 6 months Extension of § 209 Civil Code a.F. which they serve as

                                   "TO THE PURSUIST's BENEFIT"

 

      It can be seen that the ladies intend to designate the date 30.6.2000, the reader in the

      Mislead, and harm the claimant. This is punishable according to § 339 Penal Code.

     A date 30.6.2000 results only after adding the fraudulent 6 months on the fictitious

     End of 31.12.1999, ie the alleged end of the statute of limitations (due to the

     primary legal protection); After that according to OLG committee confirmation,

     "the 3 years Limitation period according to Civil Code a.F. start running again ".

     Instead of repeating the sentence (3 years statute of limitations start running again),

     added the 6 months and then investigate the alleged remaining 18 (?) months, which

     they also need to claim that no unconditional claim has been filed before 31.12.2001.

     The criminal liability of the women Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner after § 339 Penal Code is clear.

 

D5. In addition, she (Mrs Stein) should have known that actions brought before the Financial

       Tribunal (=FG) for reimbursement of too much paid or seized or withheld tax due to illegal

       Tax assessment decisions, cause a interrupt of statute of limitations and thus the

       Assertion that FG case Az 4 K 3384/01 did not interrupt the statute of limitations is

       a phrase that serves only the alleged "prescription" = fall under the statute of limitation

       of claims" and the Process fraud to be discounted.

       (see page 9 of NCB of 19.3.2018; NCB = No permission for appeal for the approval

       of the revision by BGH).   Criminal offense according to § 339 Penal Code.

 

D6. About the beginning of the limitation period (page 24, of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017)

      denies the Panel the legal effect of the FG lawsuit with Az 4 K 3384/01 and thus not only

      demands the claimant and his legal representatives but also the BGH judges. The latter have

     preferred to be silent about all legal violations of the LG / OLG judges and no positive

      Relief delivered. So it remains at all above (see also NCB page 7-8 from 19.3.2018)

 

D7. The plaintiff complained again and again because of the "cook" i.e. remove of leaves

     from the court documents on the part of the person of Court of Justice "in the OLG

     judgment of 18.10.2017.  The reader finds explanations on page 20 and mainly in    

     page 21 that are more than excuses and less than legal arguments could act.

     At the bottom of page 21 even the advocates are accused of filing the files to have styled.

     It is correct that the plaintiff personally has sent to the OLG over 17 forwarding from

     Aug. 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 with more than 200 missing pages from the styled official

     records (= GA)

    The short time, the high costs and the pressure of work did not allow at that time

     to resume further missing leaves; these are being named partly here:

 

  1. Missing the list to Az 2b o 77/08 (16 pages) of the 273 illegal tax asessmants of

       FA-Mettmann for the period 1979-1992 to the Az 2b o 271/01 then sent with briefs

       of the advocate-Lasaroff

  1. Missing "Patent Grant (Coloured) on Mechanism of Antikythera"
  2. Missing the coloured picture about the "Antikythera patent mechanism"
  3. Missing the immediate complaint of 9.10.2007 against LG decision of 18.9.2007 signed

        Mrs Strupp-Müller/ Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser/ Galle (ie against the trial fraud of 18.9.2007)

  1. Missing the summons of the parties from 2.8.2002 to hearing on 1. Okt. 2002
  2. Missing the court order of 18.2.2002 that the "recast claims of29.12.2001

        "to Az 2b o 271/01" the defendant has been made known ".

    

    The above mentioned missing documents (see also above point D3) show that only LG / OLG

     judges the interest had to remove the leaves from the GA. Therefore, in some places of

     the GA (=Official records), foreign leaves (tables of salaries and allowances !!) can be found.

     The care of the files to be respected, according to our knowledge, although the office

    of 2b chamber  (= GS), but also burdened the chairwoman.

     Especially since the separation of the 2 processes (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01) by

     Stockschlaeder-Nöll and sorting some original sheets belonging to Az 2b o 271/01,

     buried in Az 2b o 118/99, or has completely removed Stockschlaeder-Nöll from the files.

     However, the GS cannot complain if the chairwoman removes sheets from the GA.

 

D8. The "COVER" of the unlawful composition of the LG bodies is obviously one special liking

       of the OLG judges.

  

     The reason to write above line is given in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017, page 27, where three

     times, the LG decision dated May 11, 2005 (signed Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Dress / Galle)

     is mentioned; the demand of exclusion of Mrs Strupp-Müller, was decided on May 11, 2005, from

     a deliberate and against § 75 GVG (= Code about Constitution of Tribunals) also panel illegal after

   GVP (= Plan of distribution of duty under Judges) or contrary to Art. 101 GG (=Basic law) committee

     announced;

     The OLG Panel (Mrs Stein / Mrs Glaeser / Mrs Kirschner) did not say anything about the

     unlawful LG-bodies, and also does not mention that the former occupation of the 18th Senate

   (Malsch & Co) looked over it.

     The application for annulment of the LG decision of 11.5.2005 has never been decided.

     The plaintiff waited for the decision on the application for annulment and was not forever

     inactive remained; because the monthly instalments for paying the court fees were neat

     and every month since Aug. 2004 at the court cashier.

     About the illegal LG committees and short comments about the COVER by OLG,

      see chapter concerning Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

D9. The resolutions with discharge of Mrs. Fuhr u. Mrs. Glaeser encumber the badges

         (Mrs. Stein & Co)

 

D10. The Panel Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner has in the judgment of 18.10.2017 to

         Az 18 U 69/16 blocked the legal complaint i.e. the revision of the judgment is not allowed.

         Thus, the committee violated the BGH decision, which states that the revision is always

         to be admitted if a judge of the committee (ie Mrs. Fuhr) has been involved in an earlier

         instance  See BGHZ 172, 250 in NJW 2007, 2702

         In addition to all other offenses acts this arbitrary blocking of legal action on the part

         of the OLG Panel on the enforcement of the rights of the applicant, and the appellants

        of the judgment of 18.10.2017 so that Mrs. Fuhr deserve the name of the "Criminal",

        because the crime committed according to the Penal Code is at the age of 5 years

        imprisonment is punished.

 

  1. Case of Mrs. Kirschner

       

E1. Mrs. Kirschner's signature first appears in an OLG decision dated 12.1.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs

      Fuhr /Mrs Kirschner) to Az 18 U 69/16, whereby the offender Mrs. Glaeser from the charge of

      Bias is relieved.

      No single criminal element is involved in arbitrary manipulation/modification/supplementation

     the legal texts Civil Code a.F. been discovered by the then rapporteur Mrs. Glaeser.

      (so the above mentioned committee !!)

     Terms like "Manipulation of the legal texts Civil Code a.F." etc come in the decision 12.1.2017

     not before. Mrs. Glaeser allegedly did not violate any laws, the board said (and Mrs. Kirschner

     as rapporteur in the named fall / case formulates the received instruction accordingly).

    The distortion of the facts is now the hallmark of the new occupation of OLG-18. Senate

    become; The undermine from the inside is a criminal offense covered by § 339 Penal Code.

 

E2. Mrs Kirschner will also take over as rapporteur on 19.7.2017 (Mrs Stein / Mr Unger/

      / Mrs. Kirschner) the task of discharge of Mrs. Fuhr from the charge of bias.

       Although in the specialized literature (Munich comments, Zöller ZPO) the participation in a

       Court of First Instance on the same subject / action is classified as a clear case of § 41 No. 6 ZPO,

       avoids the OLG committee any word about it. Also silent is contrary to the jurisdiction of

       ECtHR case-law (see ECtHR Case Daktaras % LTU No 42.095 / 98). The Mrs Fuhr has allegedly

       no offenses (in the period 2000-2001 as confidant of the then chairmen Mrs. Tannert

        of the LG-2b Civil Chamber) in the lower court; Mrs. Kirschner signs on Aug. 22, 2017

       OLG resolution Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein /Mr Unger / Mrs. Kirschner, that

       the Demand of exclusion of Mrs Fuhr was unfounded. The arbitrariness is obvious and

        against it § 339 Penal Code authoritative.

 

E3. On 27.9.2017 Mrs. Kirschner sits at the oral hearing for OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

      (LG 2b o 271/01) in the decision-making body; but she is obliged to silence, because the

      Process management has Mrs. Stein.

      She quietly hears what and how the process (19 min. Duration!) completed

 

E4. In the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16, Mrs. Kirschner signs all (in the judgment

      contained) to the alleged limitation of claims on 06/30/2000;

       It also signs all oppressions in the years 2000-2003 the events which have taken place in this

     case, whereby the unconditional Text of the verdict disappears. She gets together with the

     other committee members Mrs. Stein and Mrs. Glaeser punishable, for the repeated

       manipulation of the legal texts Civil Code a.F. § 209.

      The panel serves the manipulation with the 6 months extension of § 209 civil code old Version

      as "at the favour of the plaintiff" and thus manifesting that (Mrs. Kirschner, Mrs. Stein) they support

     the process fraud to Az 18 U 69/16 .

      They must be clearly assigned to the criminals (ie Mrs Stein / Mrs Kirschner and Mrs Glaeser) and

      are prosecuted by § 339 Penal Code.

               Monitoring the application of laws, is the responsibility of the entire people,

                and not just of the judges

 

  1. Case Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

F1. Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll took over the position of chairperson of the 2b Civil Chamber

     about February 2002. Their offenses according to § 339 Penal Code are so numerous

       and extensive that only a brief report is made here.

 

      The tendency of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to use dirty methods, to spin intrigues,

       Execute plots, commit violations, and lie in official statements to write, can be

      clarified by a few examples, and therefore their punishment according to Penal Code

       with 5 years deprivation of liberty (proposed from lawsuit without probation).

     

       Not only did she bend the existing law, but other judges colleagues in the swamp

     of the Bending the right, dragging young women judges and making them ill, as well

       as themselves even as a single judge made decisions to demonstrate her authority.

       It has almost all LG decisions (not just on Az 2b o 271/01!) of illegally formed committees

       - which they organized - proclaim, and several process frauds or "malicious deception"

        by interns (= judges on probation) and / or legal offenses knowingly tolerated.

 

  F2. One of her first tasks was the separation of Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr out Linking

        the two procedures (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01) and repealing the resolution

       of 28.11.2000; on both assignments showed that she was not fit for the job Position

        of the chairman. She removed leaves during the separation of the 2 procedures

     and by the proof of the decision of 28.11.2000 made serious mistakes with the result

         that the question of the process ability of the plaintiff with delay was therefore

       only on 23.1.2003 ascertained.

          

   F3. After that, she spent a whole year (2 / 2002-3/2003) blackmailed the new rapporteur,

         Brückner-Hoffmann, "to reject the plaintiff's application so that the judiciary does not

        "unleashed", for which purpose the unlawful LG committee Mrs Brückner-Hoffmann /

        Mrs Strupp-Müller / Mrs Adam (with deliberate violation of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG)

         am 4.4.2003 rejected the plaintiff's PKH applications.

 

   F4. The new claims filed on 31/12/2001 to Az 2b o 271/01 of the advocate have

         the rapporteur admitted to the defendant, but Stockschlaeder-Nöll order of 18.2.2002

       removed from the files. From this document could have seen that one unconditional

         claim filed on 29.12.2001 and insofar as the limitation period is interrupted.

 

  F5. She has the sheets with the charge of 2. Aug. 2002 to the parties for an oral

        Negotiation on Oct. 1, 2002 removed and in its place the charges for a HEARING

        take place on 12.11.2002. The cargoes of 2.8.2002 can only be found at the parties.

   

  F6. The biased application of 18.12.2002 to Az 2b o 271/01 she has despite repeated

        Memories did not decide until January 2008, and she wrote LIES in her official

        Opinion (that she did not know of the request for bias before Aug. 2007).

        Finally, the request for bias of 18.12.2002 on 17 Jan. 2008 was decided, by one of

        her organized and unlawfully formed LG committee (Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe/Mrs. Vaupel /

       Mrs. Schmidt), and ordered to the "girls" her discharge from the charge of bias

 

F7. On November 20, 2003, she passes a resolution as a single judge, although she is not

          a single judge, and she was excluded according to § 47 ZPO from any decision to Az

         2b o 271/01 because of Bias application of 18.12.2002. After complaint, she adjudicates

           a decision dated back to 20.11.2003; she engages Mr. Schumacher but he was

          heavily burdened because of an official liability action and should not participate.

          After a new complaint, it issued again on 13.1.2004 a backdated to the 20.11.2003

          a decision with Mrs. Huth and Mrs. Schuster. On the 30.1.2004 a turn on the

         20.11.2003 backdated decision signed by Mrs. Huth and Mrs. Schuster .

          All previous resolutions never waived or were never decided despite the request for annulment.

          The Higher Regional Court (11th and 18th Senate) capped the offenses. Nevertheless,

           the mentioned offenses in connection with all others according to Penal Code to punish

 

  F8. On May 11, 2005, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll takes legal turns and with the help of the

         her selected LG judges Ms. Dress /Mr Galle and rejects the request for bias against

         Mrs. Strupp-Mueller although she was not allowed under § 47 ZPO and the committee

         after GVP was not competent.

        The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (11th Senate Az 11 W 15/06 and 18th Senate

         Az 18 W 23/05) "covered" the offense.

 

  F9. On August 9th 2007 Strupp-Müller celebrates with the help of Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser

        and Mr Galle Process fraud; the unlawful LG panel is organized by Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

        formed, and supervised. The legal offenses (among other things violation of § 47 ZPO)

        no interest Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, who absolutely rejected the PKH application of 9.9.2005

        demanded. After that the dirty agreement;

        Mrs. Strupp-Müller would be promoted to LG chairwoman if she joins.

 

F10. On September 18, 2007 Strupp-Müller commits again with the help of Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser

        and Mr Galle Process fraud; the unlawful LG panel is organized by Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

        formed, and supervised; the decision does not allege the delivery of the claim to defendant

        and refused the fully paid court fees.

        The confirmation that the court fees were fully paid in Dec. 2006 find the Readers in the LG

         decision on Az 2b o 271/01 of 15.12.2010 signed Mrs Keiser / Mrs. Mossbrucker / Mr Schwarz,

        in the OLG decision on Az 18 W 1/13 of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Glaeser / Anger, as well as

       in the LG Final judgment of 11 May 2016 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Frank) on Az

       2b o 271/01 and in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser /

       Mrs. Kirschner).

       

        The immediate complaint against the LG decision of 18.9.2007 disappears in time (Oct.2007-

        Febr. 2008), where the Strupp-Müller at the "18th Senate their training" makes (!).

       Also Malsch has helped a lot to the process fraud. In the middle of 2008 Mrs. Strupp-Müller

       is LG chairwoman Promoted judge. Without the interference / monitoring on the part of Mrs.

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll the "girls" Strupp-Müller and Engelkamp-Neeser the o.g. 2 process frauds

         not done.

       

       The repeal requests are buried to OLG Az 18 W 23/05 and never decided; insofar

        so far must applied the criminal code to Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll (next to the "girls")

        and the Chairman of the OLG-Düsseldorf 18th Senate, Malsch.

 

F11. Case 2b o 77/08 concerned a declaratory action; it was requested on March 25, 2008

         the listed 275 tax assessments of the FA Mettmann for the tax transactions 1979-1992

         unlawful. Until then, an application from 19. Febr. 2003 was not decided

         The list of 275 tax assessments was also annexed to a letter from the Advocate

         to Az 2b o 271/01. The attachment has disappeared in the file 2b o 271/01 "Doctored".

       This would mean that the responsible persons of the FA Mettmann would be held

         accountable.

   

         Originally Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll claimed that the LG was not responsible

         to establish the illegality of the tax assessments. The plaintiff replied with the

         Reference to the publication of BGH judge Stuttmann in NJW, 2003, H. 20, p. 1432; "Second

          Chance with the civil judge, the review of final administrative files"; After that landed

         the case at the OLG 18th Senate (18 W 7/09, Malsch § Co). After hearings against OLG

         Decision 4.3.2009, the case then had to be sent to BGH.

         On 21 Oct. 2010, the decision of the (BGH=)Federal Supreme Court on Az III ZB 62/10 signed

       Vice-President Schlick /Herrmann / Wöstmann / Seiter / Tombrink:

       "PKH for the appeal rejected because there is no chance of success, the appeal against

         the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision of 4.3.2009 to 18 W 7/09 (LG-Az 2b o 77/08)

         is inadmissible because the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf of the Legal complaint

         has not allowed (§ 17a para. 4 sentence 4 GVG) ".

         So no decision on the determination of the illegality of the tax assessments

         but shift to formalities of another topic (PKH rejection for legal complaint).

         

         The mentioned fact clearly shows how the costs are incurred and how the applications

         are blocked.

        For the never-decided question of the illegality of the 275 tax assessments of FA Mettmann

        Sticks to the Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, who in order to get rid of the file 2b o 77/08, she has

         the file (2b o 77/08) sent to FG-Düsseldorf (info from 16.9.2019 !!). More details could follow.

         For this purpose, § 339 Penal Code against Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll applicable.

     

F12. In the period July 24, 2008 until 30. Sept. 2008 Stockschlaeder-Nöll commits serious

        infringements. With the help of Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser (who controls her)

       sends to AG-Essen (guardianship court of city Essen) the secret request for initiation of a

        Supervision proceedings against the plaintiff.

        It secretly corresponds with email with AG-Judge Seelmann (AG-Essen Az 74 XVII Sa 261)

        and puts him under pressure to announce soon a supervisor with consent.

         The AG-Judge rejects the secret applications on March 24, 2009.

         The same offense had Mrs. Tannert in 2001, the loss of posts.

         The violations are: against Art. 1 EuGVVO, against Art. 7 EGBGB,

        the attempt to circumvent the applicable law (Article 101 GG) is also punishable by Penal Code.

 

F13. The discovery of the secret Email filed to AG-Essen in July 2008 leads to exclusion

         request against the two mentioned Women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser).

         The young "girls" Mrs. Tigges / Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Hoffmann are fast on the part of

         Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll asseblaged (ie unlawful composition with legal violations

         against Art. 101 GG, against GVP, against § 75 GVG), and reject the motion for repudiation

         of 16.12.2008 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser as unfounded.

         The legal violations are from the 11th Senate to Az 11 W 36/09 u.v.V. "Covered".

         The offenses are to be judged independently of the co-ordination of the LG / OLG judges.

 

F14. Because of the organization and monitoring by Stockschlaeder-Nöll and by Mrs Hoffmann,(the dwarf)

          the process fraud of the committee Mrs Strupp-Müller / Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle

       , is on 21. Sept. 2010 a motion for bias (GA Bl 855, 2bo 271/01) against the o.g. been provided.

        

         To relieve the mentioned facts becomes an illegally crafted body (Mrs. Keiser/Mrs Moosbrucker/

         Mr. Schwarz) quickly drummed up by Stockschlaeder-Nöll (with infiltration of the member

         of the 2b Chamber Mrs. Keiser!) and the immediate complaint on 15.12.2010

         rejected as unfounded.

          In doing so (the LG Panel) the OLG judges are rushed to punish the plaintiff.

         With a no-remedy-decision of March 16, 2011 appointed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll 

           to the OLG result on the immediate complaint against LG decision of 15.12.2010.

        

        Thereafter, the immediate complaint from the OLG-Düsseldorf 11 Senate to Az 11 W 12/11

         treated. The OLG decision is dated 7.6.2011 and is in accordance with the LG order.

         On 16/03/2011 sit on the decision-making body for a hearing anyway the rejected

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann (the dwaf), who were not allowed under § 47 ZPO.

         The default judgment (=VU) on Az 2b o 271/01 - because only the plaintiff personally present but

          no Avocatee has represented him on the day- dictated and announced from Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

          

         Because of ignorance of the legal situation she had not written that the VU within a time limit

          had to challenge and justify. So the VU had been in suspension for 1.5 years,

          and only in November 2012 had a month to grant the advocate the objection against

         the VU to justify. It has never decided on the claim for annulment of the unlawful VU

 

F15. On 26/09/2010, the application to Az 2b o 271/01 is made to declare unlawfulness

           and annulment of the LG decisions of 18.9.2007 signed Strupp-Müller/Engelkamp-Neeser/

           Galle which Pleading for allegedly incomplete payment of court fees, the delivery of suit,

           had been rejected (GA Bl 838). The annulment request never decided.

           The blockade of the mentioned Request has reached Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

           has become punishable made.

 

F16. Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll smuggling the young Judge Mrs. Keiser into the group

         which had to decide on the motion for bias of 21.9.2010 to Az 2b o 271/01 (GA, Bl. 953)

         The dictated statement of discharge done by Mrs. Keiser / Mrs. Moosbrucker /Mr Schwarz.

         That the LG panel was formed unlawfully (infringement of ECtHR case law), etc

         the judges of the 11th Senate OLG-Düsseldorf (Az 11 W 12/11) "covered"; supposedly

          a advocate must file a complaint, although the court is aware that the plaintiff

          Personally the PKH procedure (and judge refusals) operates.

         For the offense must be punished with § 339 Penal Code Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

       because of undermining from the inside the legal situation

 

F17. Stockschlaeder-Nöll was on 16 March 2011 as chairwoman of the LG Board at the oral

          Negotiation to Az 2b o 271/01.

       The plaintiff have had no advocate on March 16, 2011, and so far was not neat

       represented (§ 547 No. 4 ZPO) and the litigation also not tacitly accepted.

 

       The applicant had submitted to the Board by letter dated 9 March 2011 "legal objections"

       (GA, Bl. 977) and announced that the chamber with judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Fr.

       Hoffmann was not formed in accordance with the law, because a bias request since

       Sept. 21, 2010 was still pending and not legally binding, and insofar both Women do not

        the oral meeting on 16.3.2011 are likely to participate and even less pronounce a verdict.

       The motion of bias of 21.9.2010 is with OLG-decision from 7.6.2011, Az 11 W 12/11 gez.

       Mrs. Rotzheim / Mrs. Jungclaus / Wermeckes decided (see attachments: 9.3.2011, 8.4.2011,

       7.6.2011)

      The OLG resolution was decided by 2 judges (Mrs. Jungclaus / Mr Wermeckes), because of

       Serious legal offenses /i.e. offenses to OLG Az 11 W 36/09 as biased were rejected.

       So that the dispute with the OLG judges lasted until 28.11.2011 (GA 2b o 271/01 Bl. No. 1049).

       After that, the decision of (BGH) the Federal Supreme Court on February 2, 2012, Az III ZB 37/11,

       signed Schlick / Hucke (concerning OLG-11 W 12/11, regarding decision 28.11.11).

        In this respect, both women Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann from the session 16.3.2011

         bis 2nd Feb. 2012 also excluded. The 2 offenders are still not punished.

        The motion for annulment dated 9.4.2011 is rejected by Stockschlaeder-Nöll

        never decided and in so far violated the hearing of the plaintiff.

 

       Taking into account the reported legal violations, the Chamber would have the default judgment

       (= VU) and a new trial date - as the ADVOCATE had requested Bl.Nr. 981- agree. For the procedural

         errors is the accused Stockschlaeder-Nöll in Procedure 2b o 271/01 rejected as biased.

        Since the application of April 2011 has not been decided, the defendants in the proceedings

        2b o 138/19 had decided again, about their own legal violations or about their own actions,

        insofar have violated the universal and absolute prohibition of justice

                                  "no one may judge in their own things".

          On March 16, 2011 she dictates and signs the default judgment on Az 2b o 271/01

           (signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser);

           The claim is dismissed; The costs are borne by the claimant; The judgment is provisionally

                   enforceable. delivered 4.4.2011; (GA, Sheet No. 1073, Protocol Sheet No. 1072a)

           

           On April 8, 2011, the plaintiff sends a protest letter and again declares that the default

            judgment (= VU) from March 16, 2011 ist unlawfull (GA, Sheet No. 1076e + Sheet No. 1076f);

           he mentione Write is obviously pushed aside because it was not written by an advocate;

           Against the VU from 16.3.2011 on the 15th of April 2011 an APPEAL is filed on time by an

         advocate.

    

F18. On June 14, 2011, the plaintiff files a new PKH application on Az 2b o 271/01 and with the

        last line (in page 64) excludes the prosecuted judges from the decisions on this PKH

        application (GA Bl. Nr. 1076 ff)

       On April 5, 2012, the plaintiff files an immediate appeal against the LG decision of 22.3.2012

         signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Brecht

      

        The Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann were but on 22.3.2012 according to a note 

         in page 64 of the pleading (PKH application) of 14.6.2011, due to her criminal prosecution

         Right deflections according to § 339 Penal Code (see OLG Az III- 1 Ws 80/11 u.v.V.)

          from the decision locked out.

        Mrs. Hoffmann had participated on an unlawful committee on 23./24.4.2009 (Mrs. Tigges /

        Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Hoffmann) and thus violated GVG and GVP, and in total 14 Decisions

        (one each) on questions 2b o 118/99, 2b o 271/01, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 194/07, 2b o

        29/08, 2b o 84/08, 2b o 129/08, 2b o 142/08, 2b o 143/08, 2b o 145/08, 2b o 154/08, 2b o

       170/08, 2b o 172/08, as well as one on 3.6.2009 to Az 2b o 45/09 signed, whereby she rejected

        the Validity and application of EU law (EuGVVO Art. 1) u. EGBGB  Art. 7.

        The illegality of the LG Panel (Mrs. Tigges / Mrs. Schmidt / Mrs. Hoffmann) am mentioned date

        (23./24.4.2009) led to the rejection of Mrs. Hoffmann and to an official liability action on 29 Dec.

        2010, Az 2b o 7/11, against the offender Mrs. Hoffmann (the so-called dwarf).

        The rejection of the validity and applicability of EU law and EGBGB is deliberate

         to harm the plaintiff and to relieve the hidden behind the scenes

         Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll, which supervised by her formed illegal panel.

         Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll was still subject to declaratory actions (2b o 194/07 because

         of the legal Infringements committed to Az 2b o 271/01), as well as the declaratory action

         2b o 142/08 also because Infringements to Az 2b o 268/01 during the block of action of

  • § 46/47 ZPO, the bis are not legally completed today.

         In addition, the two women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann) with two official liability

        suits (2b o 154/08, 2b o 7/11) are heavily burdened with legal inflection and therefore likely

         they do not participate in the decision on 22.3.2012;

  

        Public liability claims against LG / OLG judges for legal infractions are absolute exclusions

         reasons. The official liability and declaratory actions were then not yet completed.

               This is also covered by § 339 Penal Code.

               This Arguments included in the lawsuit enforcement procedure (OLG-Düsseldorf Az

               III-1 Ws 80/11 u.v.V.) were the reasons for the rejection of mentioned women as biased

             and them long known.

 

F19. On Apr. 10, 2012, there is a supplementary application for grant of PKH, submitted for Az

                   2b o 271/01 because of the lost profit from the business with T & X with the patented

                   adjustable double action vane pump (GA Bl. Nr. 1170)

                   On 12 Apr. 2012, the LG decision on 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

                    Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Seidler (last without LG qualification);

                     the PKH application is rejected !! (GA Bl. Nr.1183);

                    However, Fr Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann were due to the exclusion request

                    excluded from the decision because of bias or criminal offenses;

                     the accused ignored the exclusion request; and that forms the basis for the

                    criminal prosecution according to § 339 Penal Code, at least the Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

                   In addition, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll charged the declaratory claim 2b o 194/07 on the

                   part of  the accused was blocked.

                   The procedure 2b o 194/07 ended with a decision of the BVerfG of 29 May 2012

                    Az 2 BvR 698/11 signed Gerhardt / Mrs. Herrmanns / Müller, whereby the complaint

                    is not to Decision is accepted. So until May 29, 2012 Stockschlaeder-Nöll was action

                   2 b o 194/07 heavily loaded.

                    

F20. On July 16, 2012, the plaintiff files a new PKH application on Az 2b o 271/01 based on the

                   Statement of claim dated 12.7.2012 of the new Advocate and excluded again judges

                   which are prosecuted because of Criminal charges and lawsuit proceedings.

                   As if nothing had happened on 26.11.2012 the LG decision with PKH rejection signed.

                  from Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht.

                   (More about Mrs. Brecht down here).

                  The accused Stockschlaeder-Nöll ignores the effect of § 47 ZPO;

                  the crime is also covered by Penal Code § 339.

 

 F21. The hostile attitude of the accused Stockschlaeder-Nöll finds the reader in the LG resolution

            from 26.11.2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht, with which the PKH

            application of 16.7.2012 is rejected. Here is the first time after 11 years of employment with the

            Claim 2b o 271/01, on the limitation of claims for damages on 31.12.2009 written.

             

           So the aim of the women was to prove that the claims for damages because of Crime

           of the FA Mettmann in the years 1979-2006, were barred, before he delivery of the lawsuit

           takes place in September 2010, (which delivery was blocked for 4 years by Strupp-Müller)

           That the ladies have grossly violated the rights of the plaintiff (for which Penal Code § 339

           applies) proves the next OLG decision of 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 and the OLG judgment of

           18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 and both are commented below right here.

          

           The LG women accept the legal advice of the plaintiff that for the action 2b o271/01

          Civil Code a.F. applies, and the "primary legal protection" due to the lawsuits to financial

          Tribunal (=FG) only in December 2006 with the procedure FG Az 4 K 3384/01 and the conclusion

          of the "agreement" ended, and afterwards started after Civil Code a.F. the 3-year limitation

             period to run.

          The lethal injection of arbitrariness give the mentioned Women with the last 2 lines in page 3

           of the Decision.

                                "The application for estimation of a minimum damage is inadmissible;

                               The ZPO does not provide for such an application (§§ 253, 256 ZPO) "GA Bl. Nr. 1374

             But the application was nevertheless admissible and the ZPO contains § 287;

               The mischief is covered by the Penal Code § 339.

        

F22. On 28.5.2014 the LG resolution on Az 2b o 271/01 is signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs.Brecht /

        Mrs Freitag , with which the PKH is rejected. The almost unbelievable reasoning is:

             The claim for damages of the plaintiff for the crimes of the revenue office of city-Mettmann

               would be on 30.6.2010 according to Civil Code n.F. barred !!

 

          Needless to say, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll has ignored § 47 ZPO.

          This is again a crime committed, which is covered by § 339 Penal Code.

 

          To be sure that the OLG rejects the immediate complaint against it,

          ordered Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on 7.7.2014 with the no-remedy-resolution

         (= called by the people as "guide to the blind") her wishes:

 

                         "The Chamber insists on the limitation of claims"

 

         and the 18th Senate (Malsch & Co) does it according to LG order (more under point C)

 

F23. Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll also chaired the 2b Chamber on 13 Apr. 2016

         the oral negotiation on Az 2b o 271/01 and the final verdict on 11 May 2016

         signed and relate to Az 2b o 271/01. The restrictions of § 47 ZPO have them

         not taken into consideration because the exclusions requested by the plaintiff

          have ignored them and no exclusion request is decided by the rejected one.

         This is also punishable by § 339 Penal Code.

 

F24.The hostile attitude of the accused Stockschlaeder-Nöll against the plaintiff recognizes the

         Readers in the final judgment of 11 May 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

          Mrs. Gundlach / Frank.

         In page 5, last line of the final judgment of 11.5.2016 identifies itself unconditionally and

         in full with the remarks of the OLG-committee Mr Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr Anger

         made in the resolution of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (LG Az 2b o 271/01).

        In this OLG resolution, the panel Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger through manipulation

         of the legal texts (§ 209 Civil Code a.F.) come to the result that the damage claims

         the plaintiff already on 31.7.2006 (ie before the full payment of court fees Dec. 2006) 

          would be "superannuated i.e. fall under the statute of limitations".

          The LG committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co is thus the accomplice to the offense

          which is covered by § 339 Penal Code.

          Especially since she had known that in the appeal 18.8.2016 against the final verdict

          11.5.2016many of their offenses were included and described in detail.

 

F25. The risk of recourse claims on the part of the employer has been well recognized by

             Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

         In a "self-indictment of bias according to § 48 ZPO" declares itself on 30 May 2016 for

         self-conscious of bias. Here she makes no time limit of bias, neither for the

         Az 2b o 271/01, nor for other parallel proceedings. (Receipt no. 12)

         But she has the bias in all previous years rejected, and many "girls" have used

        in unlawful decision-making bodies and ordered them to relieve her of being biased

        The confirmation of bias is thus according to Penal Code also as confirmation of

         committed crimes.

 

  1. Case Mrs. GUNDLACH

G1. Mrs. Gundlach is only for the purpose of write and copying the received instruction in

        the Final judgment on Az 2b o 271/01, postponed to the LG-2b Civil Chamber .

        So she turned up in silence at the hearing on April 13, 2016, she has the final

        judgment of 11 May 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 - for the satisfaction of Mrs.

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll with fee-based rejection of the official liability for alleged limitation

        formulated the claims for damages, and thereby undertook all legal infractions committed

        on the part of OLG-18. Senate in the resolution of 3.9.2015 to OLG Az 18 W 1/13. (Receipt no. 14)

 

 G2. On May 30, 2016, she signs the voluntary SELF-Indictment of partiality

        LG-Az 2b o 271/01 and after that she disappeared from the horizon.

        The remorse is rewarded with salary increase for the crimes committed.

        The fact that they committed the right-wing infractions in the OLG decision to

         Az 18 W 1/13 completely and fully identified with the crimes committed there

         has, she makes (Mrs Gundlach, with Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll) to the offender

        and belongs § 339 Penal Code punished.

 

  1. Case Mrs. BRECHT

H1. Ms. Brecht was noticed when she dared to do "deceitful deception" on her first appearance.

         

       It has on Oct. 2011, both at the hearing on 5.10.2011 and on

       12.10.2011 in default judgment to Az 2b o 268/01, the legally protected title as

      "LG judge" abused, although she was then only an intern (= judge on probation).

        The abuse was approved by Stockschlaeder-Nöll insofar as the offense after

  • § 331 Penal Code both Women burdened.

H2. Mrs Brecht was (according to available information) the judge who had the

         absurd sentence in the resolution dated 26.11.2012 had written that

                           "The application for estimation of a minimum damage is inadmissible;

                        The ZPO does not provide for such an application (§§ 253, 256 ZPO) "GA Bl. Nr. 1374

        The application according to § 287 ZPO (estimation of a minimum damage) is written also

       on the part of the Advocate but she had not dared to repeat the same sentence there.

        The false statement has also fallen to Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, who made the decision

         despite the has not yet terminated its request of bias against her, but has signed.

        In this respect, both women are punishable under § 339 Penal Code.

 

H3. "FAKE NEWS" in LG decisions written by Mrs. Brecht to Az 2b o 271/01

    

       The used Term (Fake News = spreading of false news or guesses)

       Best describes the false statements of Mrs. Brecht in the written by her Decisions.

        She (Mrs. Brecht) tries the will of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll (thus also the illegal or

       arbitrary) in any case.

      In the resolution of 12.10.2011 to Az 2b o 268/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann /

      Mrs. Brecht the requested PKH is rejected; Brecht justifies the PKH refusal with Fake News;

       

       she claims that:

      "The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that he is unable to pay the costs himself, § 114 ZPO.

       With briefs from 27.9.2011 H. advocate G. Klöpper has ordered from Oberhausen for the petitioner.

 

        Since he should not have been active without advance payment, the Chamber assumes that

        the applicant has raised the necessary costs himself. If he was able to do so, there is no

       Reason for the granting of PKH. From the above (conjecture) was not reason too - according to his

       Application of 5-10-2011 gem. § 121 ZPO to attach a advocate the applicant ".

  

       In the above Section expresses Mrs. Brecht the assumption that Advocate Klöpper from

       Oberhausen an advance would have received. She stayed with the 2b Chamber for 4 years

       and she had the opportunity at the beginning of the year 2012, to ask the revenue-office if

       the claimant has an invoice / receipt Advocate Klöpper had submitted with his tax return

       of the year 2011, and thus the statement of the Plaintiffs verify that no advance was paid

       to the designated Advocate. She would have too from the tax declaration of the Advocate

       Klöpper.

       But she did not, and she does not have the call of applicant to cancel the fake news responding.

       The consequences of the fake news had to wear the plaintiff and that is covered by § 331

         Penal Code.

 

H4. The same sentence added also referred to the paragraph in the resolution of 12.10.2011 on

         Az 2b o 198/11 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs. Hoffmann /Mrs. Brecht; also on this she has

         on the Request of the plaintiff to delete the false statement, but does not react.

 

H5. She had in mentioned Resolutions allege that the plaintiff's opinion of the physician of

       11.3.2011 would not have submitted. In fact, the expert opinion was out of the files on

        the part of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll "doctored" because the files were only on her desk

       and she had the evidence meaning recognized; to accuse the supervisor was excluded.

       But also as the controversial report 11.3.2011 with the immediate complaint of 14.11.2011

       sent quickly disappeared from the files. Brecht has kept silent about it.

 

H6. Although in No remedy resolution = Guide for Blind, not allowed further reasons written,

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll used them to order their wishes to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf

       and has them this bad habit taught the "girls" who came to her for "training".

       Non-remedial decisions are not contestable, and that what is ordered from the LG, is for

       OLG binding; it's just written in other words.

       

     Thus writes the committee (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Fr Hoffmann / Fr Brecht) in the no-remedy-

       resolution of 23.11.2011 Az 2b o 268/01 that the medical opinion is "not relevant" and further

       fake news; the nature of the new rapporteur (Mrs Brecht) forces the applicant to send on

       7.12.2011 a counter-declaration, but it remains ineffective.

           

H7. On February 7, 2012 Mrs.Brecht participated in the illegally formed committee (Mrs. Hoffmann /

        Mrs Brecht / H. Schwarz) on LG decision Az 2b o 23/12 and rejects (also with fake news) the

        requested PKH from 26.1.12.

 

H8. On February 8, 2012 Mrs. Brecht participates in the illegally formed committee

         Schwarz / Fröml / Fr. Brecht and rejects (also with Fake News) the PKH application from

       12.12.2011 to Az 2b o 244/11

 

H9. On 8.2.2012 with LG resolution Az 2b o 22/12 signed Mr Schwarz /Mr Fröml /Mrs Brecht is the

         PKH application from 30.1.2012 (again with fake news) rejected.

 

H10. The intent to harm culminates on 17 Febr. 2012 where with LG decision to Az 2b o 198/11

          signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Brecht; she fixed the contested value of the

          PKH procedure 965,068.77 € incl. 349.65 €. Mrs Brecht planned to use fictitious court cost

          (of PKH) to punish the plaintiff.

          The unlawful idea about disputed value came from Stockschlaeder-Nöll, which on Febr.

          4th 2005 to Az 2b o 118/99 with decision signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Strupp-Müller/Mrs. Drees

         tried to apply, and to punish the plaintiff; a similar attempt was made by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

         on Oct. 1, 2008 to the Az 2b o 67/08 and she has a disputed value resolution issued

           Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser / Mrs Köstner-Plümpe.

         The committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser/Mrs. Tigges tried again

         to punish the plaintiff with a disputed value resolution of 3 Febr. 2009 to Az 2b o 71/08.

          Mrs. Brecht takes over the order of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll quickly in the resolution

            17 Febr. 2012 and writes down.

          After lengthy complaint procedures over a whole year, the 2b chamber had cancelled

           legal decision 17.2.2012. It was followed by the decision of 1.10.2008

           In the PKH procedure, according to ZPO, no amount in dispute is set;

          this was only damage intention of the LG committee, for which § 339 Penal Code is applicable.

          Brecht and Stockschlaeder-Nöll are punishable for the action according to § 331 Penal Code

 

 H11. The series of attempts to punish the plaintiff with fictitious court costs in PKH proceedings

           continue until today. Therefore, reference is made only to Mrs Brecht to illustrate how

          Mrs  Brecht was able to get the promotion to OLG judge.

         On January 23, 2013, the illegally formed LG-Panel (Violation of § 75 GVG and of GG Art. 101),

         issued a decision establishing a disputed value on the PKH procedure Az 2b o 146/12,

         Mrs Brecht / Mrs. Jürging / Fröml and thus the committee is engaged in production of costs.

        

         On 21.2.13, the LG communication on Az 2b o 146/12, signed by Mrs. Brecht, states that she

        "intends" to Cancel the contested value determination decision of 23.1.13 and asks the petitioner

         if the exclusion request against Mrs Brecht and Fröml were settled; she claims that the reason is

         gone.

         

         On March 25, 2013, the LG decision of the illegally drafted committee Mrs. Brecht /

         Mrs. Schumacher / Mrs. Kersting to Az 2b o 146/12 (Violations of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG).

        The decision from 23.1.2013 establishing the disputed value to Az 2b o 146/12 is abrogated

 

H12. On 22.4.13 renewed communication of Mrs. Brecht to Az 2b o 118/99 she ask the petitioner

        for a copy of her decision about the abrogation of disputed value, because the opponent (OFD)

         of the dispute shall be asked;

       Thus, Mrs. Brecht shows anxiety about the OFD (=Supervisor of revenue-offices)-Düsseldorf.

 

H13. Two new resolutions of 23.4.2013 allow the change of attitude of Mrs. Brecht detect;

         the decisions are taken in the PKH proceedings on Az 2b o 67/08 and 2b o 71/08 both

         signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Brecht / Mrs. Jürging; the committee claims as Reason

       that the unconditional complaints were submitted from the plaintiff personally

        (although the LG is advocate-forced, and the plaintiff is not a lawyer)

             

 H14. In the official statement of 30.9.13 Mrs. Brecht concerning to Az 2b o 271/01 she claims

          that the disputed value-judgment on PKH-Application issued as "accidental"

         The above briefly described procedures of the offenses of OLG judges Mrs. Stein, Mrs. Fuhr,

        Mrs. Glaeser, Mrs. Kirschner and the LG judges Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Mrs. Gundlach, 

       Mrs. Brecht make no claim to completeness, because otherwise the room would be over.

        Individual proof can be sent on request.

The authority is looking for cooperation to better sort the offenses and in this sense

 to classify or justify the Penal Code.

Pending the communication from the Authority, I remain

best regards,

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

 

Last modified on Friday, 13 December 2019 19:25

Note please, that in the English translation could creep errors,

The translation is made prevaling from Google translator.

If you find errors send a massage to the author. 

The reader finds in PART ONE the mean near the text of used abbreviations 

A List of abbreviations with translation will  follow at the end of PART TWO.  

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 ESSEN-Kettwig

Sept. 19, 2019

 

To the

Public prosecutor Düsseldorf

Fritz Roeber Str. 2

40213 Düsseldorf/Germany

 

Here: criminal complaint against the judges of Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf/Germany ( = OLG) Mrs.

           Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs. Kirschner for crimes according to § 331 Penal Law or

           right-wing inflection according to § 339 Penal Code, to court of appeal-Az 18 U 69/16 (Appeal

             procedure against regional court-Düsseldorf (=LG) final judgment of 11. May 2016 on Az 2b o

           271/01), also against the regional court of Düsseldorf judges Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.

           Gundlach/Mrs. Brecht and Mrs. Freitag, because of right inflections according to § 339 Penal

          Code on Az 2b o 271/01 (in the final judgment of 11.5.2016 etc)

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

Hereby the signer, address as above, raise criminal complaint against the designated judges of Court of Appeal

of the 18th Civil Senate of Düsseldorf, Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner for multiple deliberate

offenses according to § 331 Penal Code among others in the judgment of court of appeal of Düsseldorf of 18.10.2017

to Az 18 U 69/16, or because of multiple deliberate legal infractions according to § 339 Penal Code to court of appeal

of Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16 (appeal against the regional court of Düsseldorf judgment of 11 May 2016 Az 2b o 271/01

and of court of appeal of Düsseldorf in judgment of 18/10/2017) or because of several violations of law (eg* Art. 101 GG,

Art. 103 GG, § 48 ZPO) etc. (*eg = exempli gratia = for example)

such as

against the regional court of Düsseldorf judges of the 2b Civil Chamber Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach

because of multiple offenses according to § 331 Penal Code or because of multiple legal infractions according to § 339

Penal Code to Az 2b o 271/01 in the judgments of 11 May 2016 and 16 March 2011 or because of several violations (eg

Art. 101 GG, Art. 103 GG, Art. 75 GVG, Art. 47 ZPO) such as

against the judges of regional court of Düsseldorf Mrs. Brecht, and Mrs. Freitag for multiple crimes according to § 331

Penal Law and "fake news", or because of multiple legal infractions according to

  • § 339 Penal Code on Az 2b o 271/01 in the decisions of 26.11.2012 and 28.5. 2014, in connection with the alleged
  • limitation of claims for damages because of the official breaches of duty of the tax office of city of Mettmann in the
  • years 1979-2006 against the plaintiff (engineer + inventor)

It is requested against the above mentioned Women judges at the Court of Appeal-Düsseldorf and at regional court-of

Düsseldorf to start investigations and open the criminal proceedings.

The offenses and violations are described in the following documents, provided with legal comments, and others,

documented with the following

  1. Constitutional Court (= BVerfG) decision of 20. Sept.2018, Az 2 BvR 1840/18, signed

                                                                                       Mr. Voßkuhle/Mrs. Kessal-Wulf/Mr. Maidowski

  1. Federal Supreme Court (= BGH) decision of 23 May 2018, Az III ZR 332/17, signed          

                                                          Mr. Herrmann/ Mr. Seiters/ Mr. Reiter/ Mrs. Liebert/ Mrs. Böttcher

  1. BGH-decision dated July 25, 2018, Az III ZR 332/17, signed Herrmann/Seiters/Reiter/Mrs Liebert/

                                                                                                                                               Mrs Böttcher

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf ruling of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser

                                                                                                                                                  Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision of 30.8.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /

                                                                                                                                                   Mrs. Glaeser

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision of 19.7.2017 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

       signed Mrs. Stein / Unger / Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf official statement by Mrs. Fuhr of 11.4.2017, Az 18 U 69/16
  2. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision from 12.1.2017 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf Az

                                                                         18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf official statement of Mrs. Glaeser from 31.8.2016, Az 18 U 69/16,

                                                                                                                                                   Az 18 W 25/16

  1. (PKH =) Demand for official aid, from 19.8.2016 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf-Az 18 U 69/16

                   with a motion for bias against Mrs. Glaeser

  1. Appeal of 18.8.2016 against the final verdict of 11 May 2016 of regional court of Düsseldorf
  2. Self-indictment of Partiality from 30.5.2016 acc. § 48 ZPO of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.

                                                                                                                                                                  

  1. Final judgment of 11 May. 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.Gundlach/Frank
  2. OLG-Decision 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Mr Malsch/Mrs Glaeser/Mr Anger
  3. LG-decision of 28.5.2014, Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Brecht/Mrs. Freitag
  4. LG decision of 26.11.2012 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht
  5. OLG-decision of 7.6.2011 to Az 11 W 12/11 signed Mrs. Rotzheim/Mrs Jungclaus/Mr Wermeckes
  6. LG-Default Judgment 16.3.2011 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.Hoffmann/Mrs.Keiser

                                                                                                                                                                          

  1. LG decision of 11.5.2005 to LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Drees/Mr. Galle

                                                                                                                                                                  

  1. AG-Essen (= magistrate´s court of city Essen) decision of 2.1.2002 signed Dr. Locher

                                                                                                               "Request for supervisor is rejected"

  1. LG-annulment decision of 29.11.2001 to LG-Az 2b o 118/99 signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co
  2. LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 Official statement of Mrs. Tannert of 18 May 2001
  3. LG proof decision of 28.11.2000, LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 signed Mrs Tannert / Mrs Fuhr /

                                                                                                                                              Mr Schumacher

  1. LG-letter dated 6.1.2000 of Mrs Fuhr "in representation of the chairwoman" to the plaintiff

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

  1. Introductory, Legal situation

The judges are subject to the law (Article 97 Basic Law) and a breach of law occurs when a decision with legal rules

is not justifiable.

Art. 97 GG guarantees the protection of legal validity against attacks "from within", ie judges.

According to § 339 Penal Code, the right-wing infractions are punishable by imprisonment of 5 years and the

limitation period (for general offenses, which are subject to the statute of limitations) depends on the amount of the

punishment threat, i.e. the limitation period in general cases with penalty of 5 years, expires after 5 years (§ 78, No. 4,

Penal Code).

The beginning of the limitation period is based on § 78a Penal Code (after a procedure has ended legally).

The limitation period rests in the cases of § 78b Penal Code.

The procedure 2b o 271/01 went through all four instances (LG / OLG / BGH / BVerfG) and is only legally finalized

by a decision of the BVerfG of 20.9.2018. (BVerfG decision received 6.10.2018)

(Receipt no. 1) Concerning. the commencement of the limitation period for the bringing of an appeal against damages.

claims for damages caused by decisions of the civil servants, the BGH decision applies that

"the limitation period can start only if the damaged knows that the official acted deliberately".

The proof of the intention deliver among others, the OLG-Düsseldorf judgment from 18.10.2017 to

Az 18 U 69/16 (Document no. 4), and Higher Regional Court decisions of Düsseldorf dated 3.9.2015

(Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) (receipt no. 14), dated 12.1.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner)

(voucher no 8), and of 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) (Voucher No. 5),

as well as the LG-Düsseldorf Judgments issued on May 11, 2016 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach

/ Frank) (voucher no. 13), and of March 16, 2011 (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser)

(voucher no. 18), and LG decisions dated 26.11.2012 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht)

(voucher No. 16), and of 28.5.2014 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Brecht / Mrs. Freitag ) (voucher No. 15)

both to item 2b o 271/01, which was also referred to in order to take into account the respective deadlines for the

continuation of the procedure and timely appeal was always filed.

 The § 339 Penal Code (StGB) refers to "infractions of justice" and reads as follows:

"A judge, another public official or an arbitrator guilty of deferring the law in directing

or deciding a case in favour of or to the detriment of a party shall be punished with

imprisonment of between one year and five years."

The legislature explains (Art. 19. Nr. 129, EGStGB = Introduction Law of Penal Code), in addition,

that "deliberate or knowledgeable action is not required, but" conditional intention "is sufficient".

The § 339 Penal Code affects only judges and applies to the protection and legitimacy of the law,

but not to protect the judges. The judicial privilege is not used.

The act can be committed (according to BGH):

> by infringement of substantive law, such as the application of invalid laws; or

> by misapplication of the law, for example by deviating from clear legal norms;

> or making or having a measure not provided for by law;

> or by falsification of the facts to which the law is to be applied;

> or by violation of the obligation to inform

   or exceeding the judicial discretion,

> or issue of an order that is to be executed prematurely.

> The violation of procedural standards may also be sufficient (BGH 32, 357; 42, 343; 47, 105).

> Deflection of rights also results from unlawful gathering of evidence,

> or by consciously "overlooking" applications "and much more

According to case law of the BGH, it is necessary that:

> "justified the procedural violation of the concrete danger of a wrong decision

   without actually having any advantage or disadvantage.    (BGH 42, p. 343, 346, 356)

  The BGH adds that:

 "A bending of the right is then only if the offender consciously and in a serious way

  away from the jurisdiction and from the law ".

  The case law assumes that "the diffraction of the law required by § 339 of the Criminal Code

                                                                                 is more than the violation of binding legal norms ".

> The intent must be directed to the right in favour of or against a party

    to hurt; no special purpose is required (BGH 32, 360)

From above mentioned Compilation of a few of the most important terms will also result

in some necessary explanations: first on "conditional intent (and subject matter):

      (More about the BGH contradiction to the "conditional intent" see literature)

> Conditional intent, in order to take into account the special decision-making situation

   of the judge wear, if he internalizes the possibility of the error of the legal opinion

   approvingly

> Conditional intent is also present if the judge is the legal impersonation of a

   Considers it possible to reach an opinion that seems appropriate to him

   Results but accepted; this does not require a totally foreign motivation.

> The act is completed with the adoption of the legally unacceptable decision.

> Their legal effectiveness is not important.

 > Even decisions that are "void" are subject to the facts of § 339 Penal Code.

The last sentence is supplemented by the applicant in the following way:

> "Even decisions that are subsequently overturned by another body,

   fulfill the facts of § 339 Penal Code. "This is the case here and the sentence applicable.

Now the practices of the accused Mrs. Fuhr, then rapporteur and "in representation of

chairwoman" ( = i.V. the chairwoman) for the official liability claims of the plaintiff,

pending in the 2b civil Chamber of the regional court of Düsseldorf are mirrored

and with Case law analyzed and commented.

   

Conditional intent is sufficient for right-wing infraction (BGH 40, 276)

"The action is perfected, with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision,

if it can bring about the effect of a better or worse position of a party directly

or unfold through the realization".

For the subsequently described legal fractions of Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser /

Mrs. Kirschner, as well Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Mrs. Brecht / Mrs. Freitag,

etc. is the fact that the process 2b o 271/01 and then the appeal of 18.8.2016, Az 18 U 69/16

(and then the revision or the (NCB = No permission for appeal for the approval of the revision),

where the criminal acts (It is only completed in October 2018, and thus the effect / consequences

of the actions are unfolded. (including loss of damages, loss of court fees, loss of pension etc);

this means among others that the punishable acts are not barred.

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

  Cases of legal inflection (§ 339 Penal Code) in OLG-Düsseldorf decisions/judgments and evidence

 

B1. Case Mrs. Fuhr

  1. The deceitful content of the letter of 6.1.2000 signed Mrs. Fuhr "in representation of the

     chairwoman", to the plaintiff, and the unlawful evidence of 28.11.2000 (signed Tannert / Fuhr /

   Mr. Schumacher)

Proof No. 24 (copy of letter 6.1.2000 above) shows that Mrs. Fuhr has sent a letter "in the name of the

chairwoman" to the claimant and asked, which Advocate would represent him in case of grant

the requested PKH (= demand for official aid).

That was on the occasion of the communication of December 1999 of the plaintiff about the departure of the

then legal representative.

It can be seen from this that Mrs. Fuhr had already been instructed in the planned conspiracy of Mrs. Tannert

(then chairperson of the 2b Civil Chamber), and with the harmless question asked by the plaintiff about the intent

of the two women (Tannert / Fuhr) wanted to deceive about the planned and soon starting plot.

The "in representation of the chairwoman" reveals the complicity and offense.

The deception by the management is also a crime recorded by the § 339 Penal Code,

if it affects the situation of a party. It is (according to BGH) not necessary that a

disadvantage has arisen; is sufficient if this creates a concrete danger.

The concrete danger was caused by the fact that in the time (Jan. 2000) the plaintiff did not

have advocate as a legal representative could call and the conspirators have exploited quickly.

     On 29 February 2000, the plaintiff sends a DINA4 Leitz folder filled with 592 leaves

     with evidence of the violations and offenses of the officials of the FA (=Tax Office of city)

     Mettmann. It contains a number of references proving the nationality of the plaintiff.

     The consideration of the folder would have prevented them from taking the "order of

     evidence of 28.11.2000 ". Several leaves revealed that the plaintiff was Greek Citizen

     and this meant an appeal to the Greek judiciary, which they ignored.

     The inadequate clarification of facts is also covered by § 339 Penal Code.

B2. The secret applications of March 2000 at AG-Essen (=magistrate´s court of city Essen)

         (for the initiation of a Care procedure) to eliminate the plaintiff as partial (!?) Incapacitated

         On March 7, 2000 Mrs. Tannert had secretly at the Essen district court the introduction of a

         Procedure for the dismissal of the plaintiff requested. The document no. 22 confirms o.g.

         Statement.

        So, the "internalization of the offense" is detectable to the women because they

         have requested an inadmissible secret procedural action, i. the claimant (without Advocate)

        as "partially (!?) unable to process" switch off. So that was also a concrete danger

         originated by § 339 Penal Code is recorded.

 

B3. The "Proof of Conclusion of 28.11.2000 signed Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr /Mr Schumacher"

       (Voucher No. 23)

      The danger has become even more acute on 28.11.2000 than the conspiracy of spinning

     2 women (Tannert / Fuhr) the then young judge Schumacher have turned to commit the

       "completion of the offense".

     Schumacher signed as "LG (= regional court) judge", although he was then only an

      "apprentice" (= so a judge on probation) was, which should be incorporated in the plots.

   The "malicious deception" is also covered by § 339 Penal Code.

     It is therefore unlawfulness of the composition of the body (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs.Fuhr /Mr.

     Schumacher), which also underpins the intentions of the judges (and Mrs. Fuhr).

     On Nov. 28, 2000, as a collegiate body, they issued the "Proof of Evidence", whereby

     the plaintiff on the part of the Medical association of Dusseldorf as "partially (?!)

     incapacitated" should be stamped.

      As a result, European and German law is bent. (Art. 1 EuGVÜ, Art. 7 EGBGB),

     covered by § 339 Criminal Code

But after March 7, 2000 (application by Mrs. Tannert at AG-Essen for a "mentoring process", too

on 31.3.2000 the application for a "guardian with reservation of consent" followed) and until 28.11.2000

(issuing of the proof) a series of events took place, which provide additional proof

and show, with which intensity the conspirators (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs Fuhr) the elimination of

the plaintiff in person and in so far as his deprivation as a party planned and pushed forward.

The goals of women are therefore obviously criminal and punishable under § 339 Penal Code.

They urged the judge of the AG-Essen (Mr. Winterpacht) therefore a quick decision to announce

(ie before an Advocate appears), because they could already have guessed that the involvement

of a lawyer for the procedure at AG-Essen, their desired decision on the part of the AG- City of

Essen, was endangered and fears that the appointed SUPERIOR would not come.

In addition, on 27 September 2000 (two months before the adoption of the decision), the applicant sent

a letter to the 2b Civil Chamber informing him that he was a Greek citizen and, pursuant to the then

transnationally applicable Art. 7 EGBGB, responsible for an incapacitation, which was Greek justice.

The German judiciary would have had to send a request for help to the Greek judiciary.

The plaintiff applied for the suspension / termination of the care procedure for breach of EU law.

Information and application has Mrs. Fuhr ignored as a rapporteur, and this is fully according to

  • § 339 Penal Code to their load.

On the other hand, the AG-judge Winterpacht, wrote on 15 Nov. 2000 to Mrs. Tannert / Mrs.Fuhr

of the 2b Civil Chamber that a care procedure would be difficult to carry out, because no mental

illness was detectable by the plaintiff.

At that time, the women foiled with rage (see file 2b o 118/99, ADOPT files!)

and then castrated the AG judge Winterpacht legally.

They did not inform him about the issued "order of proof of 28.11.2000" and left it

the plaintiff to inform of this to the AG-Essen judge.

The conspirators wanted to quickly switch off the plaintiff and have the existing laws,

(EuGVÜ, EGBGB) the judge colleagues of the AG-Essen, and completely ignored the

applications of the plaintiff.

This convinces about their purpose, goals and mood, i.e. to achieve a planned result

against the claimant. That was criminal and punishable according to § 339 Penal Code.

In addition, the judgments delivered by the (FG=) Financial Tribunal of Düsseldorf contained

a number of references concerning the Greek nationality of the applicant, and those

references were made by the FG. It is essential that the body of regional court (in particular

Mrs Fuhr as rapporteur) takes account of this. But she did not do that; the alleged "oversight"

is covered by § 339 Penal Code.

All above described Events / evidence are on the part of the Panel (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr /

Mr Schumacher) was ignored and the ruling on 28.11.2000 formulated so that the plaintiff no

Chance had, if it had been realized, to shake off the pejorative stamp from him.

The conspiratorial actions of women (Tannert/Fuhr) also had a delay effect on the official

liability claims 2b o 118/99 u. 2b o 271/01, which were connected in February 2001 and

the plaintiff had to defend against it. The aim of the combination of the two processes was

the intention of the criminal women to bring both official liability actions to failure in one

fell swoop.

The disadvantage of a party resulting from the action of the judge is also covered

by § 339 Penal Code

The above described Facts also prove the legal violations of Mrs. Tannert /Mrs Fuhr against

the Enlightenment and against falsification of the facts, and these violations are also covered

by § 339 Penal Code. Both women have falsified the facts and undermined existing EU law.

The criminally thinking and acting women (Tannert / Fuhr) attracted an intern Mr Schumacher,

(at that time a judge on probation) approached, in order to give him the responsibility for their

long-prepared criminal act (decree of the decision of November 28, 2000).

At the time, Mr. Schumacher did not have a protected "LG judge title" and both women

(Tannert / Fuhr) supported the "malicious deception" of the trainee (to be signed as

"LG judge"). Mrs. Fuhr can not and does not deny today that he knew nothing about it.

The decision of the collegial body burdened to the extent of all three parties involved.

Mrs Fuhr cannot and must not shirk responsibility to the others.

 

B4. Annulment of the decision of proof of 28.11.2000 by another chamber member

The "Nullity of the Proof of Conclusion of 28 Nov. 2000 (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr / Schumacher)"

also proves the "content of the annulment decision of 29.11.2001" written by a other chamber

occupation. (Receipt no. 21)

This (repeal decision of 29.11.2001) expressly refers to the EU's and Greek laws (Greek ZPO and

Civil Code) mentioned by the plaintiff and applicable to him. However, the two women (Tannert/

Fuhr) did not want the current EU, EGBGB Art. 7, and not apply Greek laws. The planned offense

was for the above mentioned Women more important than the law.

 

B5. Rejection on 2 January 2002 by AG-Essen of the secret applications of March 2000

In addition, the secret applications at the AG-Essen (=magistrate´s court of city Essen) are dated

March 31, 2000 for the purpose of maintaining a supervisor with consent, from AG-Essen on

January 2, 2002 rejected. (Receipt no. 20)

The decision is only at the time of the introduction of the Civil Code new version = BGB n.F.

 valid from 1.1.2002 and delivered a few days later. This is a "special circumstance"

according to Law (BGB n.F.) that the effect of the statute of limitations according to previous law

(BGB a. F.) in the period from 1.1.2002 continues.

But Tannert/Fuhr have remained silent and thus the application of § 339 Penal Code made possible.

 

B6. Mrs Fuhr has as LG judge planned/executed only offenses according to § 339 Penal Code.

B6.1 Why did Mrs. Fuhr ignore the contents of the files 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 and

         of the DINA4 Folder?  Folder with the 592 sheets and the evidence of Greek nationality

          of the plaintiff, contained in the FG judgments / orders ?   to harm the claimant.

B6.2 Why did not she investigate after receiving the applicant's letter of 27 Sept. 2000?

         to determine that in fact the expressly named EuGVÜ Art. 1 and EGBGB Article 7

         apply to the claimant? and a request for help with the Greek justice required?

        She already had the inner dislike and wanted to turn off the claimant personally.

B6.3 Why has it bowed EU law and distorted the facts? and why does she have

        as A .... wiper or as "in representation of the chairwoman" Mrs. Tannert said

         to all "Yes" and "Amen"?

         is it because the violation of the BGH jurisdiction regarding intent of the officials

         is not an offense?

        At the time she was unaware that the signature under the Evidence Warrant was a

        concrete danger represented? and the unlawful consequences would be the plaintiff's

        life have to carry? The answers show the intent to harm the plaintiff

B6.4 Why did she submit after the request 27.9.2000 (on cessation of the illegal and

       against the applicable EU and German laws directed care) none

       Communication sent to the AG-Essen for the secretly requested illegal dismissal

       stop the plaintiff and complete quickly? That contradicted the plot

 B6.5 Why did she ask Judge Winterpacht about the adoption of the unlawful evidence

          decision of 28.11.2000 not informed?

          The humiliation of the AG-judge had also come to it when she learned from him that the

          Enforcement of secret applications via a supervisor was not feasible.

 

B7. Activity and decisions of Mrs. Fuhr as OLG judge on Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Az 2b o 271/01)

        Mrs. Fuhr was already promoted to OLG judge in 2001/02 and at OLG-Düsseldorf had

        a comfortable place until the end of 2016. In the beginning of 2017 entered the 18th

       Civil Senate, where the appeal of the plaintiff (OLG Az 18 U 69/16) had to be decided.

       As at the then time (2000/01) by regional court, also now at the court of appeal-18.

     Senate (2017) commits her only Violations of law / legal inflections.

 

B7.1 The decision-making body (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner) sits on 12.1.2017

            although she according to § 48 ZPO was not allowed and relieved the heavily burdened

         Mrs. Glaeser to Az 18 U 69/16 from the charge of bias. The above mentioned Panel

         has wrote that

 

      "the participation of the rejected judge in the appeal proceedings 18 W 1/13 and 18 W44/14

       is a typical procedural pre-recourse and not taken alone appropriate to justify the concern of bias"

 

       So, it is confirmed (in)directly that the rejected (Mrs. Glaeser) has a Vorbefassung

      (= negative attitude towards the plaintiff), which had resulted from the appeal proceedings

       18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 came here.

       The crimes committed there (Mrs. Glaeser) are punishable, but by the other offender

       (Fr. Fuhr) in the next lines designed as flawed legal applications that are not punishable.

       Mrs Fuhr drove Fr. Kirschner to write the negative decision of 12.1.2017 signed (Mrs. Stein/

       Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Kirschner) after their "recommendations" and the Mrs. Glaeser theatrically

       relieve.

       The same (= relief) expected Mrs. Fuhr also by Mrs. Stein in the refusal request against them

         (against Mrs. Fuhr) and the discharge came too.

B7.2. Mrs Fuhr knew from her years of work at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf that

         it was not responsible the 18th Senate to decide against rejection of members of the 18th

         Senate.

         In the case of bias applications in accordance with GVP (= Distribution of duty on Senates),

         OLG-Düsseldorf-the 11 Senate was/is responsible.

         Other interpretation of the published GVP and this equipped with force-law is not allowed.

         So Mrs Fuhr knew she was in an illegally formed body on the 12.1.2017 sat. The violation of

         ECtHR case law is simply ignored and rejected by the Section 339 of the Criminal Code

         (see Decision EGMR No. 42.095 / 98 Daktaras % LTU)

      

B7.3. With official statement which Fr. Fuhr has delivered on 11.4.2017, confirms that

       on 28.11.2000 she had signed the "Proof of Evidence" and she agreed with which the

       medical association Dusseldorf was instructed to stamp the plaintiff as partial (!?)

       Incapacitated (ie only for the civil liability lawsuits pending at the 2b Civil Chamber! )

       but she denies that she has committed criminal offenses.

       (see official statement of Mrs Fuhr of 11.4.2017, receipt no. 7)

       

       Is it not a criminal offense to avoid the competent Greek judiciary and the applicable laws

       (EuGVVO Art. 1, EGBGB Art. 7)? is not an offense a PKH seeker (without legal Assistance)

         to commit the violation of Art. 101 and Art. 103 GG?

       is it because the violation of the BGH jurisdiction regarding intent of the officials is not

       an offense?

       At the time she was unaware that the signature under the Evidence Warrant was a

       concrete danger represented? and the unlawful consequences would be the plaintiff's

        life have to carry? The answers show the intent to harm the plaintiff

 

B7.4. On Aug. 30, 2017 Mrs. Fuhr also provided the heaviest criminal proof of what she said

         of Laws and case law. She sat in the committee (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser),

         with which the PKH application for the appeal 18 U 69/16 is rejected. Here, comments

         are made in the OLG ruling on Az 18 U 69/16 of 30.8.2017 written.

          It is first stated here that Mrs. Fuhr has an indication of her bias under § 48 ZPO

          should have done. She had participated in the associated procedure 2b o 118/99

          and on 28.11.2000 signed the "proof of evidence". (See BGHZ 172,250, NJW 2007,2702)

          The "decision of proof" is set aside by other members of the chamber and as justification

          that there are no indications that the applicant could be limited in his business and thus

           process capability. Given this history from the in connection with proceedings 2b o 118/99,

         Mrs Fuhr found that the applicant was entitled Doubts about their impartiality had, and

           this realization would Mrs. Fuhr to one indictment in accordance with § 48 ZPO.

         The violation of § 48 ZPO and § 41 ZPO was considerably for the subsequent appeal

         judgment and constitutes a criminal offense.

     

      B8. Excerpts from the Higher Regional Court decision of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs Stein /

         Mrs Fuhr /Mrs Glaeser Az 18 U 69/16

      B8.1 In page 6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2, the Panel declares the validity and applicability

              of the Civil Code a.F. (§ 211), that "after legally binding completion of the procedure

             with the FG the 3-year-old Statute of limitations began to run again ".

       

             The panel commits the multiple process fraud in the last 3.5 lines of the second

             paragraph in conjunction with lines 1-2 of the second paragraph; There (last lines

             of paragraph 2) is the following.

      

            "In favour of the plaintiff, the Senate has already in previous decisions for this period

             assumed legal force six months, so that by the legal action before the Financial court

             triggered interruption of the statute of limitations ended on 30.06.2000 at the latest. "

 

       From o.g. Rows arise that

      (a) an interruption of the limitation period has occurred because of the FG rulings, and

  1. b) according to lines 1-2 of paragraph 2, the 3-year limitation period has started to run again.

                                                                                                                              

  1. c) The 18th Senate has also committed the fraud demonstrated here below in

                                                                                                                    "previous decisions"

  1. d) they are in favour of the plaintiff

      (e) the legal force (the limitation period) six (6) months after notification of the FG verdict lasts

            

    Under o. "Point c" ("earlier decisions") is the process fraud of Mrs. Glaeser to

   Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) from 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

   meant, and in the next lines (also in chapter concerning Glaeser), analyzed/commented.

   The pun on the terms "statute of limitations", "time limit of limitations",

"interrupt of limitations" the offender (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

   produced the confusion and then write the wrong one Result of attaining

   the alleged "statute of limitations"; the intent is demonstrable;

    in the following way:

   

  "The FG proceedings have nevertheless interrupted the statute of limitations

     (primary legal protection) and these Interruption of the statute of limitations

   due to the FG proceedings (ie because of the primary legal protection) ended

     one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last ?!) FG judgment ".

 

   Well, on the basis of the data of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision,

   in page 6, paragraph 2. the (alleged !!) last FG judgment on 24.11.1999, it follows that:

   Assuming that the FG-judgment was delivered in early January 2000, it 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 challenging by the BFH !!).

   Thereafter, i. from the beginning of February 2000, the legal 3-year limitation period

   (according to Civil Code) for the collection of the official liability action began to run.

     (as OLG confirmed in line 1, paragraph 2)

    The end of this statutory limitation period according to Civil Code would be 3 years later

    i.e. occurred in February 2003

   The panel of Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, however, claims that the interruption

     of the (Civil Code) "statute of limitations" on "30.6.2000" ended, without specifying that

     the interruption of the statute of limitations due to the primary legal protection ended

   and then the 3-year limitation period has started to run.

     Thus, the offense is completed and the offense is also revealed in page 6, paragraph 3,

   in point a) where it writes that the limitation period of 3 years according to Civil Code a.F.

  •    § 211 ended on "30.6.2000 at the latest on 31.07.2006 ".

   That, neither on 30.6.2000 nor on 31.7.2006 the 3-year-old (civil code) limitation period

   (the in February. 2000 has started to run) on 30.6.2000 ended, is only result of the

   planned / executed Process fraud of women.

    The trio (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /Mrs. Glaeser) purposely avoided writing that the

    3 year old Limitation period according to Civil Code in February 2000 has started to run.

   By the suppression and use of the word "statute of limitations" (from the primary legal

   protection !!), the panel has misled the reader and thus achieved the wrong result

    i.e. that the 3 years (Civil Code) limitation period on 30.6.2000, or at the latest (!?)

     on 31.7.2006 would have expired

     In addition, the panel, both in Resolution 30.8.2017 and in the whole OLG ruling of

     18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 does not explain how the date of 31.7.2006 results.

     The 3e break in Page 6, is completed with a mysterious date "31.7.2006", which is the

   arbitrariness of the panel and the process fraud proves what the panel in any case the

     absurd  "Enforce prescription" tries.

       This is punishable by Penal Code with more than 5 years imprisonment.

     The fallen with the parachute date "31.7.2006" serves the committee later for others

     criminal conclusions and "the fraud is served in favour of the plaintiff" (so the panel)

     The ladies obviously stand above the laws and can arbitrarily legal monthly period

     lengthen or shorten.

 

B9. The distortion of the facts committed in page 7 serves to the aim to do, i.e. to achieve

       the statute of limitations. To enforce the limitation of claims for damages and to

     "cover up" the crimes of the revenue-office of the city Mettmann.

    Throughout the Higher Regional Court decision dated 30.8.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed

     (Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) is nowhere written a word about the more

     frequently directed complaint/reminder that the Bank seizures from 1986-1989

     have not been abolished until today, although three of the team of the FA-Mettmann

       had twice applied for annulment. The head of the swamp was against it.

           "As long as the damage intervention lasts the statute of limitations cannot start"

                                  the BGH has decided (which still applies today).

     If the above panel of court of appeal with the two offenders (Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

     reported it in the facts, then the requested PKH would have granted as well on 18.10.2017

       as in Judgment on 18 U 69/16 of the compensation of damages.

     But they wanted to enforce the statute of limitations in each case, therefore of the bank

   seizures and the application of the three heads of section was silent and thus distorted /

     manipulated the facts, as it was convenient for them.

         This is also punishable by the § 339 Penal Code.

 

B10. Also the compensation for pain is in the view of the offenders (Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

         "statute barred" (see resolution 30.8.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, page 10, point e)

     

     Damage to health, however, becomes time-barred according to Civil Code a.F.

       and according Civil Code n.F. in 30 years.

       Claim 2b o 271/01 was filed on 5.2.2001 and previously the limitation period was

       interrupted (primary legal protection).

       When did the 30-year limitation period of the Civil Code expire?

     

     If the o.g. Bank seizures are taken into account, the limitation period has not yet

      started running. That again convinces about the intention of the offenders to achieve

     the "statute of limitations for all applications" and on criminal liability under § 339

     Penal Code.

    

     In addition, it has repeatedly been said that the compensation for pain is not included

     in Az 2b o 268/01 because no identical cause has, as the requested compensation money

     to Az 2b o 271/01 for the crimes the FA (= revenue-office of city)-Mettmann (subsidy

     loss etc, even if coincidentally have the same amount).

     The assertion of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf was also dealt with in detail

     in the appeal of 18.8.2016 (Pp. 59-60 and in pleading 12.7.2012, p. 3, 94, 117) and

       invalidated, but the OLG Panel in any case, the claim for damages of the plaintiff

     wanted with false claims destroy.

     This convinced of intent and criminal offense according to § 339 Penal Code.

 Incidentally, what the trio (Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Fuhr /Mrs Glaeser) in the PKH-rejecting

   decision of 30.8.2017 writes in order to justify the reject of the claims for alleged

   prescription, is almost unchanged in the OLG judgment taken on 18.10.2017, so that

   the offense is repeated.

  

 C: Case Mrs. Glaeser

  1. She is in the OLG-18. Civil Senate occurred around March 2015, and on September 3,

       2015 signed  the Decision in which the panel (Malsch /Mrs Glaeser / Anger) criminal

       offenses has committed

       

     What criminal instincts Mrs. Glaeser possessed, she proves in the resolutions of 3.9.2015

      to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14

     Noticeable in this decision of 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13 are the following facts:

  1. all events that took place during the period 2000-2003 and influencing the question

              of limitation are from panel (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) discreet; eg. as

  1. Connection in March 2001 u. Separation in Nov. 2001 of the 2 proceedings 2b o 118/99

                                                                                                                                    and 2b o 271/01,

III. or the secret applications of March 2000 by Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr at the AG-Essen

  1. or the AG-Essen decision, rejection on 2 January 2002 of the supervisor with consent
  2. or the final clarification of the plaintiff's process capability on 23.1.2003,
  3. or the proof of Evidence, decision of 28.11.2000 (Tannert / Fuhr / Schumacher) which

             on 29.11.2001 is cancelled by another chamber occupation.

VII. or the exclusion of Mrs. Fuhr (pursuant to § 41 No. 6 ZPO (= Civil Procedure Code)

             or § 48 ZPO) to participate in further decisions in Az 2b o 271/01

VIII or the illegality of the composition of the LG bodies (for example, on 4.4.2003, 11.5.2005,

          on 16. March 2011)

  1. or about the consequences of the statute of limitations for applications for bias against

      the LG judges (18.12.2002 Stockschlaeder-Nöll, 5.5.2003 against Strupp-Müller, 21.9.2010

       against Mrs. Hoffmann)

  1. or about the consequences of the process fraud on 9.8.2007 and 18.9.2007 of the -

      Strupp Müller/Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle and the trial fraud of 29.8.2007 of the cost

     official (Mr. Habich)

  1. or concerning the repayment by FA-Mettmann to the applicant in 1999-2000-2001-

   (The repayment after agreement by financial court on 15.12.2006 is evaluated differently

   by the LG / OLG)

Likewise, there is no word in the comments section on the effects of bank seizures,

although in the resolution 3.9.2015 (on immediate complaint against LG decisions

with PKH refusal) in Page 5 row 7 counted from below the "illegal seizures" are mentioned;

The applications of the three section heads of the FA-Mettmann to cancel the bank seizures

altogether, are not mentioned in any LG / OLG decision or LG / OLG judgment.

The suppression of substantive proof is a criminal offense that is punished.

Again, it is argued in decision 3.9.2015 that the claim for damages of the plaintiff was

time-barred on 31.7.2006 (page 9, line 7 counted from the top) because the "claim"

was not served until Sept. 2010 and the full payment of the court fees in Dec. 2006

could not change the already existing limitation period.

 

                The aim of the group (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) is obvious:

                                    

 "Prescription before the full payment of the court fees in Dec. 2006 intervenes"

 

To come to the absurd results, the above mentioned (= o.g.) Panel changed/manipulated

arbitrarily the legal texts of the Civil Code a.F. (eg § 209) with 6 months supplement/

extension of the statute of limitations after delivery of the last Financial court (= FG)

judgment (see page 6, paragraph 2. Line 10 counted from above, or page 7, line 3

counted from above).

The arbitrary modification / manipulation of the legal text is a serious offense

which is punished according to Penal Code with at least 5 years deprivation of liberty.

  The plaintiff argues for the

                               "Bring the accused persons before the" judge's court ",

                                    with result: the dismissal from service".

After publication of the o.g. OLG resolution of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

followed on 22.9.2015 vehemently censure and (about 22 Sept. 2015) the chairman Malsch

is relieved of his post and sent into retirement. Mr. Anger was removed from the 18th

Senate at the end of the year, while Mrs. Glaeser stayed by the 18th Senate and committed

other crimes.

To avoid repetition see Listening 22.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 and supplements.

 

C2. The appeal against the LG ruling 11.5.2016, the biased motion of 19. Aug. 2016

       against Mrs Glaeser on OLG Az 18 U 69/16 and her participation in both the

     PKH-rejecting decision signed on 30.8.2017 Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser

     and in the Higher Regional Court judgment 18.10.2017 signed Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser

   / Mrs. Kirschner

 The items written under items B7 and B8 to B10 are also valid in their entirety against

Mrs. Glaeser, but on Aug. 31, 2016 made a 2-line official statement (see document no. 9),

commented by the plaintiff, but she is relieved by Mrs. Stein and Mrs. Fuhr on 12.1.2017

from the charge of bias for the manipulation of legal texts.

One of the offenders (Mrs Fuhr) relieves the other offender (Mrs. Glaeser).

 

The following are some notable legal differences between the two bodies on 3.9.2015

(Malsch /Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) to Az 18 W 1/13 and 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /

Mrs. Glaeser) to Az 18 U 69/16 shown (which also reveal the contribution of Mrs. Stein

to the process fraud).

In resolution 3.9.2015 (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) it was stated that the written

submission of 5.2.2001, a "suit" or "claim" (7) is reported seven times, e.g.

Page 2, line 10, counted from below, on "Claims of 29.12.2001";

Page 2, lines 5-4 counted from below, redrafted on "Application for Point 1 on 13.8.2004";

                              Note: the "claim to Point 1" had been made with the action of 5.2.2001;

Page 3, line 20 from the top counted on "the action (written pleadings of 5.2.2001 and

                          13.8.2004)is delivered on 13.9.2010 ";

Page 3, line 24 counted from the top "dismissed the claim"

                           (of which date is the claim not specified !!), ie of the 5.2.2001 !!

Page 5, line 9 counted from the top, on "claim to 1";

                          Note: the "claim to Point 1" had been made with the action of 5.2.2001;

Page 8, point b) "claim to Point II";

Page 8, point c) "Application for the award of Point III"

that is, not from applications in the PKH proceedings, but from "lawsuit" or "claims"

is reported. This is in conformity with the submitted pleadings of the advocate.

In the resolution of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser, on the

other hand, is only referred to in page 7 and in page 9 of a "service delivery", but

otherwise reported only by REQUESTS; the term "application of Claims" or "Claims"

of the resolution of 3.9.2015, is deleted / not used !!.

 

Further serious differences concern "the new claims filed on 29.12.2001"

(by order of 3.9.2015, page 2),

while in page 11, line 7 of the decision of 30.8.2017 of a "payment claim" yet written,

but the legal consequences of the limitation period in both above mentioned Decisions

(3.9.15 and 30.8.17) are concealed. The text in the resolution 30.8.2017 is the following:

 

"... the revised legal aid application received by the court on 31.12.2001

       left, and limited to a claim for payment and a supplementary pension. "

 

Well, in the newly filed applications of the Advocate on 29.12.2001 the first page

twice the speech is raised by the claim, and in page 2 also twice by the brought

lawsuit. In addition, this pleading (29/12/2001 received on 31.12.2001 at the court)

to the defendant "made known"

 

So, a lawsuit filed before 1.1.2002 interrupts the statute of limitations.

 

These facts have both the regional court of Düsseldorf (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

Mrs. Gundlach) on May 11, 2016, as well as the OLG bodies in the two resolutions

(3.9.2015 (Malsch / Glaeser / Anger), and 30.8.2017 (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser), and

in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) suppressed to hide

the legal consequences of the alleged limitation of the claims.

All mentioned bodies of LG / OLG committees claim that no statute of limitations

occurred before 1.1.2002. Therein lies the process fraud of all those accused.

It is a "crime" punishable by 5 years imprisonment

Only in the resolution of 30.8.2018 is the manipulation / amendment of the legal

text (§ 209) Civil Code a.F. reports that the six-month extension of the limitation

period takes place "to the benefit of the appellant" (page 6, para. 2),

while in the resolution 3.9.15 the extension does not comment.

So the women (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) are suddenly above the laws

and allowed arbitrarily to extend the duration of the interruption of the statute of

limitations on the basis of the FG judgments i.e. "Extend or shorten a party's favour",

thus providing a party with procedural advantages or disadvantages (and the BGH

is silent about this !!). This is punishable under § 339 Penal Code.

 

   Will the prosecution find that okay ?? or denounce the accused?

 

C3. Another striking difference between the OLG judgment of 18/10/2017 and the

     previous of the LG decisions of 26.11.2012 and 28.5.2014, as well as the OLG

   resolution 3.9.15, the reader finds in the date of the termination of the statute

     of limitations (after consideration of the Agreement by the financial court on

       15.12.2006, or ignoring the agreement, dated 15.12.2006).

     The LG decision of 26.11.2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht)

               terminates the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F. determined

               on 31.12.2009.

     In the LG resolution of 28.5.2014 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs.Brecht /Mrs. Freitag)

             is the termination the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F. on 30.6.2010.

     In the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch/

             Glaeser/Anger the termination of the limitation period according to Civil

             Code a.F. at the 31.7.2006.

     In the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) the termination

             of the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F. on 30.6.2000, not later

           than 31.7.2006.

 

All mentioned Decisions only show that the authors and the committees deliberately

ignore the facts and the legal situation falsified, to come to the conclusion that,

the claims would be time barred.

     In the 1st LG decision (from 26.11.2012) the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F.

                   allegedly enters on 31.12.2009,  

                   So before the lawsuit that took place only in Sept. 2010.

    In the 2nd LG decision (from 28.5.2014) the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F.

                   allegedly enters on 30.6.2010,   that is,

                     before the service of lawsuit was delivered in Sept. 2010

      in the 3rd OLG decision (from 3.9.2015) the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F.

                 allegedly enters on 31.7.2006,  that is,

                 before full payment of court fees in Dec. 2006.

    in the 4th OLG decision (from 30.8.2017) the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F.

                 allegedly enters on 30.6.2000  ie

                 before coming into force of the new statute of limitations

                     (beginning on 1.1.2002)

        As you can see, the disagreement between the LG / OLG bodies concerns only

       the date of the statute of limitations. but the goal is always the same

                     "claims are time barred".

      The crimes are punishable by more than 5 years imprisonment and for the punishment is

      "Judge court" in Düsseldorf responsible. Only the employer (NRW) has the right to bring

     Defendants before the Judge court and to do so has the Attorney General as an assistant.

 

C4. Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB and infinite confusion in the Higher Regional Court decisions of

          3.9.2015, 30.8.2017, and in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017

   

          As the opinions of the three OLG bodies in the application of Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB

          is another proof that all three bodies by means of faulty Claims to justify the

         "statute of limitations" of the claims.

          Thus, in the OLG decision of 3.9.2015 (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) in page 7,

         the application Art. 229 § 6 Abs. 3 EGBGB confirmed, but in the decision 30.8.2017,

         in point 3, page 8 the OLG Panel (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) asserts that Art. 229 § 6

         Abs. 4 EGBGB would be correct, and it is denied in page 25 in the OLG judgment

         of 18.10.2017 (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) that there is a case where Art. 229 § 6 (3)

         applies. The Mrs. Glaeser sits in all three committees.

         Mrs Glaeser no thinks about the obvious different opinions on 3.9.15 and 18.10.17

         and had signed. She signs everything that is presented to her.

 

C5. About the claim for damages is in both resolution 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13

     (Malsch/ Mrs. Glaeser/ Anger) as well as in the resolution 30.8.2017, Az

     18 W 69/16, (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) and in the OLG ruling

     of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs Kirschner)

        erroneous Allegations that constitute a crime.

        The first-instance claimed, claim for damages was not subject of the procedure

        to LG Düsseldorf Az 2b o 268/01 - OLG Düsseldorf Az 18 U 223/11 - like the Prove

         the files of 2b o 268/01. To say the contrary is punishable willful lie.

        The subject of the judgment under section 2b o 268/01 was claims for lost profits

        and a claim for damages because of a lost order (AVT).

        In addition, in the view of the regional court-Dusseldorf, the claim for compensation

       for pain so that no decision has been made about it, which would have come into legal

         force. The offense by violation of the Art. 103 GG is obvious.

        In addition, the panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) claims arbitrarily in

        page 10, Point a, of the resolution 30.8.2017, that the claims for damages (in 30 years

        statute barred !!!) already on 31.7.2006 (!!) would be barred! and refers to the

        committed process fraud with the manipulation of the legal text § 209 Civil Code a.F.

        The reference to the process fraud convinces the intention to harm the plaintiff.

        Almost identical comments to the above described facts, the reader will also find

       the subject in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, pages 28-29, to which

       reference is hereby made, with which the Continuing to prove the process fraud.

 

C6. Statutory pension and rights violations in the resolution 3.9.2015 by the

       allegedly missing legal protection need of the plaintiff, as well as in the

       resolution 30.8.2017 page 11, and then in OLG ruling 18.10.2017 page 28, point 6

         Regarding the claim of the plaintiff, the OLG-Panel (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser /

          / Anger) in its decision of 3 September 2015 on page 8:

 

     "The complaint is unfounded for the reasons stated by the LG.

     The claim for legal assistance is lacking since it is the subject of proceedings

       2b O 118/99 in varying amounts, but not fundamentally unchanged. "

 

    It is not disputed that, in the applications of the action of 13 August 2004 Case

   No 2b o 118/99 no claims for pension claimed as the files of Az 2b o 118/99 prove.

    To say the contrary is punishable willful lie.

    The plaintiff renounced to accept the application for supplementary pension

     secondly the statement of reasons in the application of 21 June 1999.

On the other hand, the legal protection requirement for a statutory pension remains,

because the decisions on the PKH applications have not come into material legal force.

This means that the plaintiff (without loss of rights) can apply for a pension (for legal

or additional pension) and justify it every time.

For the first time, a detailed pension calculation by his pension consultant is available

for the legal pension application. This calculation has never been objected to (see

pleading of 12 July 2012, page 118 ff.).

Further violations by the OLG-committee Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

are included in the appeal of 18.8.2016 and to avoid redundancy is referred to there.

End of the first Part

 

Last modified on Friday, 04 October 2019 22:34

Today 27 | Yesterday 276 | Week 27 | Month 8771 | All 74415