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)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Mrs STEIN, Mrs FUHR, Mrs GLAESER, Mrs KIRSCHNER, JUDGES of OLG-Düsseldorf (Part two)
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)
- 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:
- 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
- Missing "Patent Grant (Coloured) on Mechanism of Antikythera"
- Missing the coloured picture about the "Antikythera patent mechanism"
- 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)
- Missing the summons of the parties from 2.8.2002 to hearing on 1. Okt. 2002
- 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
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.
- 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
- 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 /
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
Dr. Th. Sartoros