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)

Tuesday, 08 October 2019 14:58

Complaint directed at general Attorney in HAMM (Germany) against the decision 28.8.2019 of the Public Prosecutor's of city Essen, Mr Kali

                               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

Visitors: Today 32 | Yesterday 22 | Week 54 | Month 669 | All 42110

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok Decline