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)
Strafanzeige gegen Richter; Criminal charges against Judges of Düsseldorf, Strupp-Müller, Galle, Fr. Hoffmann, Fr. Köstner-Plümpe, and cost officer HABICH
Dr. Th. Sartoros
January 16, 2020
Prosecutor's office in Düsseldorf
Fritz Roeber Str. 2
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).
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.
- 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,
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
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.
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,
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.
- 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
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.
- 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)
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 ".
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;
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)
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:
- The association of the present proceedings with 2b o 268/01 is rejected.
- an extension of the deadline set on 7.3.2005 by concluding claim
→ 3rd. application from 13.8.2004 on delivery of the application according to § 14 No. 3 GKG
→ 4th. application for bias 5.5.03 against Mrs. Strupp-Müller is rejected as unfounded
- Application for bias against Mrs Stöve is rejected as inadmissible. GA Bl. No. 336
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
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
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/
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
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).
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.
- 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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:
- 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.
- 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 /
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.
- 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)
- 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.
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.
- 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
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
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
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.
Dr. Th. Sartoros
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)
- LG-D´dorf annulment decision of 29.11.2001 Az 2b o 118/99 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /
Goldschmidt-Neumann / Schmidt-Kötters
- 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
- 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
- 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
- LG decision of 4.4.2003 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Brückner-Hoffmann / Strupp-Müller / Mrs Adam
- Application for bias from 5.5.2003 on Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01 against
- Grounds for the maintenance of the application for partiality of May 5, 2003 against Strupp-Müller
- 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)
- Letter from August 12, 2003 to the application for bias from December 18, 2002 against Ms.
Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Strupp-Müller
- 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
- Ms. Strupp-Müller's official statement on Az 2b o 271/01 of Aug. 25, 2004
- Order from 30.8.2004 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Drees regarding bias Strupp-Müller and
- LG letter from April 14, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs Drees regarding bias Strupp-Müller
- Reminder from Aug. 26, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01 that Mrs Strupp-Müller and Stockschlaeder-Nöll
Stay excluded because of bias
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- GA sheet no.408, calculation of the value in dispute 1,838,180.46 € to Az 2b o 271/01 from
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- Appeal dated December 21, 2006 for inaction by the 2b chamber or for non-decision
Application for annulment of decisions signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll etc
- List of resolutions of January 20, 2007 signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll and
Strupp-Müller on Az 2b o 271/01
- 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
- LG decision of 9 Aug. 2007 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle
PKH application rejected on 9.9.2005
- 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.
- Reminder / complaint dated Aug 12, 2007 Az 2b o 271/01 for service of the claim and for
undetermined bias Stockschlaeder-Nöll.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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)
- 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?
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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)
- 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"
- 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 "
- 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;
- 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
- 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
- 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 "
- 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
- Official statement by Dr. Hoffmann on Az 2b o 203/09 from March 22, 2010
"She doesn't feel biased"
- 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 ".
- 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
- 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.
- LG decision of November 15, 2010 Az 2b o 177/10 signed Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser /
"Application for bias from 17, 2009 against Dr. Hoffmann as unfounded
rejected "." Nemo judex in causa sua "is unknown to the "girls" above
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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 !!
- 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.