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)

Wednesday, 08 April 2020 12:10

Strafanzeige vom 22.2.2020 gegen LG/OLG-Richter; criminal complaint against Judges of court of appeal Düssedorf dated 22.2.2020

 

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 ESSEN-Kettwig

February 22, 2020

 

 

 

To the

Prosecutor's office in Düsseldorf

Fritz Roeber Str. 2

40213 Dusseldorf

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Abbreviations used

 

AG= a magistrate´s court

ASt = proponent, applicant, petitioner

Az = Number of File

Bl. = sheet of official files

BGH= supreme political Tribunal of Germany

BGB a.F. = Civil Code of old Revision

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

DM = money of Germany until 31.1.2002

€ = current money of European Uniom (EU)

EGBGB = Introduction-law of Civil Code

EuGVVO =

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

FA= Tax office

FG = Financial Tribunal

FRG = Federal Republic of Germany

FSK = declaratory lawsuit

GA = Court records, court files

GenStAnw = Office of general Attorney

GG = Constitution of Germany, basic Law

GS = Secretary office

G'scher = the follower

GVG = Tribunal Constitution Law

GVP = Business Distribution plan between the Judges of a tribunal

i.S.d. = at the sense of

LG = regional court (of Düsseldorf)

NAB = non-remedial decisions = instructions for blind

NJW = review of juridical articles    

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

NZB= complaint against the non permission of legal complaint

ObStAnw = Upper State Attorney

OFD = Direction of tax offices

OLG= Court of appeal (of Düsseldorf)

PKH= demand for financial judicial aid

RA = lawyer, advocate

StGB= Germany´s penal code

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

v.A.w = promoted from office

VU = default judgement

ZPO = Civil Procedure Code

 

Dear Sirs and Madames,

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

many more,

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

into the conspiracy.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

  1. Facts

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       and marriage broken.

      

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

        Mettmann began to reimburse the looted bit by bit:

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

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

     capital !!)

 

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

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

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

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

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

        Falter, Mrs. Stöve u. Schumacher on.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

       consequences.

 

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

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

       against Ms. Tannert is dismissed as unfounded.

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

        Year 2001. (Document No. 4)

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

       one immediate complaint.

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

 

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

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

         Reminder sent to the 2b chamber.

 

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

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

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

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

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

           (Document No. 7).

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

          

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

        

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

         Judge" (!!!)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

         the AG-Essen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

   

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

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

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

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

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

      

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

     with the following signatures:

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

   (Document No. 22-35)

 

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

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

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

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

              (Document No. 36 and 39-44)

 

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

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

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

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

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

                      remained in history.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

             (Document No. 45-58)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

                                                                                                 (Document No. 115 - 128)

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

         intention to harm.

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

        if a decision cannot be justified with legal rules ".

 

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

   i.e. judges.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

        6.10.2018) (documents already provided)

 

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

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

     839 BGB and the BGH Decision that

 

           "The limitation period can only start if the victim knows

             that the official acted INTENTIONALLY. "

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

         wrote her "official statement"

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

         imprisonment.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

         punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment.

 

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

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

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

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

            damage.

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

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

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

            The limitation period has not yet expired.

 

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

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

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

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

               the plaintiff.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

             

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

         (see also Az 141 Js 2483/19

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

               and reads as follows:

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

              or exceeding the judicial discretion,

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

                                                                    The BGH adds:

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

                Way away from law and order ".

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

                                                                     is more than the violation of binding legal norms ".

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

              internalized.

 

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

                 Considers decision possible to achieve an appropriate one

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

 

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

 

C10.16. Her legal effectiveness is not important.

 

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

 

                       The plaintiff adds the following sentence:

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

   

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

 

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

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

   the  realization ".

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

  1. Fall Ms. Wolks-Falter (2001)

 

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

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

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

 

     Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      imprisonment for all signatories of the decision.

 

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

         Decision because this immediately leads to the plaintiff's disadvantage

          and has also unfolded through the realization ".

 

        Comments:

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

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

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

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

    

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

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

         (Az 2b o 118/99).

 

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

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

         in the handwriting drafts.

 

        Comments:

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

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

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

         D'dorf resident).

 

 

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

 

         Comments:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       the punishment is up to 5 years Prison is provided.

 

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

       

         Comments:

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

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

     (= NAB) of July 20, 2001.

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

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

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

       She also signs as a SINGLE JUDGE !!!

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

 

  1. Case OLG judge Mrs. Grabensee

 

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

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

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

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

 

        Comments:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

       Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  1. Case Ms. Jungclaus

     

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

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

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

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

      the Putsch Club) or the laws from within undermined.

 

     Comments:

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

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

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

     Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

 

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

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

  • § 339 StGB.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

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

       (see proof in the attachment).

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Sentence up to 5 years in prison.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

     in prison is provided.

 

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

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

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

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

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

    that relieve themselves of the accusation of bias is unsurpassable.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

       (§ 47 ZPO).

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

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

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

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

       up to 5 years in prison.

 

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

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

         Koewius).

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

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

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

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

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

       the OLG committee still gives instructions on the PKH procedure

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

     Wermeckes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

May 28, 2016 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll as unfounded.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Only and exclusively initiated process fraudsters used for relief.

 

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

according to the law;

 

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

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

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

for exclusion against Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

were supposedly time-barred.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

dispensed with.

 

  1. Case Ms. Tigges

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

weakening public confidence in the judiciary.

  

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

     and the situation could be dangerous for her.

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

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

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

  • § 339 of the Criminal Code.

 

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

       Plümpe / Ms. Tigges was little surprised.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

        the thrown together LG committee is illegal.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

        confused and mixed the topic.

 

G5.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

        EU law is unimportant for Engelkamp-Neeser.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     request.

 

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

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

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

         Section 63 (1) GKG set.

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

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

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

      successfully threatens and defends itself.

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

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

       up to 1 year imprisonment.

 

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

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

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

      zu 2b o 170/08 (11.2.2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll is rejected as unfounded.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

  1. Fall Ms. Baan and Mr. Wermeckes,

         

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

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

 

 H2. on February 18, 2010 under the leadership of Ms. Jungclaus, enthusiastic about the process fraud

             (where they show can do what she is capable of), Ms. Baan signs the following 10 resolutions

              11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

              11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

             11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

              11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

             11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes

              11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/09) signed Jungclaus / Baan / Müller

 

H3. On February 22, 2010, she slides one place behind Ms. Jungclaus and as the author of 6 OLG

        D'dorf decides that Ms. Baan signs the following with the other fraudsters:

                       11 W 38/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                     11 W 40/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                       11 W 42/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

                       11 W 44/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

                       11 W 46/09 signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan

                       11 W 54/09 (LG 2b o 118/99) signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller

 

       In all of the above Decisions are as follows:

      "The determination of the value in dispute for the complaint procedure remains. The value in dispute

        in Matters of bias correspond to the value of the main thing u. does not depend on the costs

        the legal aid procedure. The reason for this is that the ace with the biased ultimately wanted

        the main matter to be decided by other judges.

        The cost decision regarding the hearing complaint follows from § 97 ZPO, for the rest is one

          Cost decision not prompted “ So the laws of superman override !!

 

H4. On March 31, 2010 the hug of dear Mrs. Baan on the part of the fraudster Mrs. Jungclaus

       meant that she had to sign another 10 illegal decisions.

    > OLG decision on 11 W 37/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

   > OLG decision on 11 W 38/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as

                                                                                                                                                                               inadmissible

   > OLG decision on 11 W 39/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

 > OLG decision to 11 W 40/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as

                                                                                                                                                                              inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 42/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 43/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Müller with rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 44/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision to 11 W 46/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision on 11 W 54/09 Jungclaus/Baan/Wermeckes rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

> OLG decision on 11 W 59/09 Jungclaus / Baan / Müller rejection of the hearing complaint as inadmissible

 

H5. On May 12, 2010, Bünten again bowed to the request of the main litigant and performed

        her signature under the following 6 resolutions:

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 38/09, signed by Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 154/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 40/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 194/07)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 42/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 172/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 44/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 145/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 46/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Jungclaus / Baan (2b o 29/08)

       May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 54/09; signed Dr. Bünten / Baan / Müller (2b o 118/99)

 

      with rejection of the counter ideas March 9/15, 2010 against the OLG decision from February 22, 2010

       each accomplice being careful that their rank occurs accordingly.

 

H6. Already on October 4, 2010 in decision on 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08) signed Jungclaus/Ms. Baan/

       Wermeckes.

        Ms. Baan has overtaken the Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes); the immediate complaint against LG

        Decision June 24, 2010 / August 5, 2010 against the rejection of the partiality application against

       Stockschlaeder-Nöll is from the illegal body of the pseudo-chairwoman Jungclaus (violations of Art.

       101 GG, against § 122 GVG) rejected as unfounded; Complaint costs after Value in dispute of the main

     proceedings; The ASt bears the costs. Punishment for anyone over 1 year in prison.

 

H7. The plaintiff reacts on October 23, 2010 with a request for bias against Mr Wermeckes / Ms Jungclaus /

       Mr Müller / Ms. Baan to the well-known Az 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08), 11 W 55/10, 11 W 77/10,

       11 W 79/10, 11 W 81/10, 11 W 82/10, 11 W 83/10 due to legal injuries in 29 cases

 

H8. On December 17, 2010, an application for bias against Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller u.

      Dr. Bünten on Az 11 W 87/10 (LG 2b o 268/01) with reference and reference to the application for partiality

      from 10/23/2010 to 11 W 61/10 and inclusion of the hearing complaints from 18.10.2010 for Az 11 W 61/10

 

H9. Ms. Baan was the subject of a first official liability lawsuit / PKH on December 25, 2010 (2b o 6/11)

           because of process fraud of the well-known litigious Dr. Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

            Müller / Wermeckes in 85 cases (Az 11 W 36/09 to 11 W 59/09 from 23.9.2009 to 12.5.2010

            The PKH requested by the LG multiple offender Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Jan 18, 2011 rejected for

         "insufficient prospect of success". LG decision signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Keiser/Ms.

           Mossbrucker

 

H10. On Dec. 29, 2010 i.e. only 12 calendar days after submission of the partiality application

         an illegitimate OLG committee (Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller) decides with two

         judges excluded due to § 47 ZPO (Ms. Jungclaus / Müller) and rejects this Application

          for exclusion against dear Ms. Baan, as well as against Ms. Jungclaus/Mr Wermeckes /Mr Müller

          for Az 11 W 77/10 (LG 2b o 129/08) and Az 11 W 54/10 (LG 2b o 142/08) as inadmissible;

         As usual, the ASt bears costs according to the complaint value; The fraudsters give themselves

         itself absolution and condemn the plaintiff. Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

annotation

 

          Throughout the whole of 2011/2012/2013/2014, the plaintiff fought against the arbitrariness

          of the Decisions of Ms. Baan, which jumps from May 11th to the 18th Senate around May 2012

          and as rapporteur 2-digit exclusion requests in the various proceedings (Az)

          rejected as "inadmissible"; sometimes for the OLG committee the bias

          establish as unsubstantiated, or even as offensive content. The illegality of the

          displayed LG bodies are always covered; Applicable laws are not mentioned.

          The judges do not like protests where their crimes are focused.

         Therefore in the following pages only the date and Az of the contested OLG decisions

         with the LG-Az and the names of the key committee members in brackets.

          Now and then only short comments to clarify the crime of the committees.

 

H11. On January 28, 2011 the OLG decision on Az 11 W 94/10 (LG 2b o 45/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Fr.

           Baan / Müller;

         Tenor: The immediate complaints from 26.9.2010 against LG decision 9.9.2010 and from November 14th,

       2010 against LG decision of November 8th, 2010 (signed Ms. Keizer/Ms. Dr. Schumacher/Ms.

           Moosbrucker) are rejected as unfounded; the ASt bears the costs.

          Complaint value € 6,000;                That the LG committee is illegally formed and none Presiding

          judge (violations of Art. 101 GG and § 75 GVG), will Ms. Baan and accomplice Müller kept silent.

         Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

H12. The OLG decision is issued on January 31, 2011. Az 11 W 55/10 (LG 2b o 203/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim /

            / Ms Baan /Mr Müller; Rejection of the application for bias 23.10.2010 against Ms. Baan /

             Müller / Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus as inadmissible (and abusive);

             the ASt bears the costs. Complaint value € 11,600.

 

   Comments:

 

           PKH-proceedings do not include a value in dispute; Order signed by two criminals; For Baan there

               Absolution to itself. Here, the value in dispute is only named to punish the plaintiff (revenge)

 

H13. The OLG decision is issued on January 31, 2011. Az 11 W 79/10 (LG 2b o 121/10 separated from

          2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller;

         "Rejection of the application for bias October 23, 2010 against Ms. Baan / Müller / Wermeckes / Ms.

         Jungclaus as inadmissible;  the ASt bears the costs. Complaint value 135,000 euros."

          According to the settled case law of the Senate (OLGR 1994, 127 = NJW-RR 1994, 1086) the value

         of the main thing (see BGH 1968, 796).

         In both of the above Resolutions of January 31, 2011 give the offenders (Mrs. Baan / Müller)

         absolution to theirself and to the accomplices. After that, the costs are deferred to the ASt and

         the Written illegal value in a PKH procedure to punish the plaintiff again

           Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H14: The OLG decision is issued on 9.2.2011. for Az 11 W 87/10 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed Ms. Rotzheim / Fr.

            Mrs. Junglaus / Müller (rejection of the rejection application from December 17th, 2010 against

           Bünten /Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller / Ms. Baan as inadmissible; Tenor:

           "Rejection of the immediate complaint of October 13, 2010 against the LG decision of September

           23, 2010 as inadmissible. "Because the rejection request of December 16, 2008 against Stockschlaeder-

            Nöll because of inadmissible secret applications to the AG-Essen for a supervisor with reservation of

            consent is aimed at reaching the complaint on the part of the fraudsters and multiple Criminal,

            Ms. Jungclaus / Müller, declared "inadmissible".

            Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H15. The OLG decision is issued on April 13, 2011. Az 11 W 94/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius

         (LG 2b o 45/09); Tenor: hearing complaint of 9.2.11 against OLG decision from 28.1.11 will be returned

         pointed. There is no violation of legal hearing. A violation of the plot prohibition according to § 47 ZPO is

       not recognizable. The application for bias to 11 W 87/10 is right abusive u. with final decision of 9.2.2011

       (11W 87/10) determined to be inadmissible.

            The Bf repeats incorrect legal views. Legal complaint is rightly not allowed

            Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H16. On April 18, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08) Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

          Wermeckes; Tenor: Complaints rejected as inadmissible. Two offenders (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes)

           claim the hearing complaints would be inadmissible, although they should not be allowed to decide.

           The offenders discuss the result beforehand. Then the unlawful decision is made.

 

H17. On May 12, 2011 the OLG-D´dorf decision on Az 11 W 61/10 (LG 2b o 145/08) signed Ms Rotzheim

         / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes; "The hearing complaint from October 18, 2010, supplemented

         October 23, 2010  against the OLG decision of October 4, 2010 is rejected as inadmissible

       (it is alleged not in the legal form)." The applicant bears the costs of the hearing complaint.

          The offenders thus cover their offense and punish the plaintiff.

         For the crimes committed, the Criminal Code provided for a penalty of more than 1 year to 5 years

 

H18. On May 16, 2011, the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 83/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

          Wurmeckes (2b o 172/08); There seems to be a particular interest in connecting the two offenders

           here. The intention of the duo (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes) to hide the crimes of the FA-Mettmann

           makes the two punishable with more than 1 year in prison according to the Criminal Code

 

H19. On August 12, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. for Az 11 W 12/11 (regarding LG 2b o 271/01 Galle / Ms.

            Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser) signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius; The request for

             bias against Ms. Jungclaus has become inadmissible because she went to LG-D'dorf as Vice President

              has gone. The application for bias against Wermeckes is unfounded (!!!).

              Bias Stockschlaeder-Nöll shows no reason for rejection (!)

             What the criminal (Ms. Baan) does not want to see, she declares it as "not visible".

             Ms. Baan still needs Mr. Wermeckes for the next illegal decisions

          Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Mrs. Baan & Co ??

 

H20. The OLG decision is issued on September 5, 2011. Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Rotzheim /

        Ms. Baan / Koewius.

         The application for bias against Ms. Baan is considered inadmissible (and abusive) rejected;

      The hearing complaint dated 19.8.2011 pursuant to OLG decision from 12.8.2011 (11 W 12/11) will be

       called rejected unfounded. The costs of the hearing complaint are borne by the ASt

       No wonder that everything the ASt requests in immediate complaints is rejected as unfounded

      becomes. Ms. Baan gives absolution to herself again. Now what does the public prosecutor mean ???

 

H21. On November 28, 2011 the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 12/11 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan /

                    Wermeckes (LG-2b o 271/01); The complaint of 19 June 2011 against the decision of the Senate

                    dated 7.6.2011 is rejected (as unfounded).

                    The counter ideas of ASt from 18.10.2011 against the decision of the Senate of September 5, 2011

                   is rejected.  The Bf must bear the costs of the complaint. ”

                   The fraudsters (Ms. Baan / Wermeckes) suspect that the time of capping them

                   Offenses soon end; and take advantage of the time to start the new year

                   to bring in (Koewius) in their line (to punish the plaintiff)

 

H22. The OLG decision will be issued on 20.12.2011. Az 11 W 81/10 (LG 2b o 170/08) signed Ms. Rotzheim /

          Wermeckes / Koewius; Application for bias against Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Baan / Müller

          rejected as inadmissible; Allegedly abusive with querulative content.

          The application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll or the immediate complaint against

          LG decision from 9.9.10 is rejected as unfounded

          The Phantom of the Opera (Wermeckes) describes the complaints against the fraud of the

          Putsch clubs of the 11th Senate as "querulous content"; he tries to kill the ASt close.

         The offender Wermeckes exonerates the other members of the putsch club.

        Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Wermeckes & Co ??

 

H23. On 21 December 2011, the OLG decision is issued. Az 11 W 82/11 from Ms. Rotzheim / Wermeckes /

          Koewius (regarding LG 2b o 143/08 Brückner-Hoffmann as single judge). The application for bias

          against Ms. Baan / Wermeckes / Müller is rejected as "inadmissible"; The immediate complaint dated

          24.9.2010 against the LG decision from 9.9.2010 with which the application for bias against Ms.

           Hoffmann has been rejected will also be rejected. Cost decision according to § 97 ZPO.

           Wermeckes offender exonerates the other members of the 11th Senate coup club.

           The almost nervously sick Wermeckes knows that he cannot stay at the OLG-D´dorf

            and grants ABSOLUTION to himself and to the other accomplices.

           Undermining the inside of the law is also punishable under the Criminal Code.

 

H24. The OLG decision is issued on 29.2.2012. signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius 11 W 83/10

       (Az 2b o 172/08; PKH from August 15, 2008). The rejected Mrs. Baan gives absolution to herself

         and declares the application for partiality as "inadmissible". Mr. Müller left the Senate,

         Ms. Jungclaus as a representative enjoys legal protection. Otherwise no cost decision. Here

         noticeable the lack of a cost decision

           (in the past even according to the amount in dispute of the main thing)

 

H25. On 16 May 2012, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 33/12 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch/Weith/Ms. Baan;

           Ms. Baan finds a pleasant position at the 18th Senate. She collects the complaints she has

           had rejected while working for the 11th Senate. The new decision has the following

     Tenor: "The immediate complaint of April 5, 2012 against LG decision. from 22.3.2012 the

                 the reasons for the contested decision and the decision not to remedy the situation

                 rejected on March 14, 2012. The complaint does not justify a different one Decision:

                 Cost decision will not be initiated § 127 (4) ZPO"

                A look at the LG decision 22.3.2012 and in the NAB from 14.3.2012 convinced:

                This is exactly what the 2b civil chamber "ordered" and Ms. Baan as rapporteur

                took it literally. The chamber was supposedly manned by regulations!

 

H26. The OLG decision is issued on 16.5.12. Az 18 W 38/12 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

          " immediate complaint from April 29, 2012 against LG decision from April 12, 2012 will becomes,

           the applicable Grounds for the contested decision and the decision not to remedy it of 2.5.2012

            rejected. The complaint does not justify a different decision. The chamber was said to be staffed

           according to regulations"; although they violate § 75 GVG.

           the whole reason with 4.5 lines: The annual statistics are thus embellished.

          Does the public prosecutor clearly see the tactics of the accused OLG judge Malsch / Ms. Baan ??

 

H27. On July 9, 2012: OLG decision 18 W 4/12 (2b o 170/08 due to Schumacher) signed Malsch/Weith/

                      Ms. Baan

          The complaint from 30.3.12 against OLG decision from 19.3.12 (Malsch / Stobbe / Haarmann) as

          inadmissible (according to § 567 (1) ZPO and as inadmissible (according to § 567 (2) ZPO because

         of the Value in dispute less than € 200) rejected; The new trick: value in dispute less than € 200

          Disputed value in a PKH procedure again to have the thing off the table.

 

H28. On July 10, 2012, the OLG decision is issued. 18 W 37/12 (2b o 265/11) signed Malsch/Weith/Haarmann

            Tenor:

            "Will the immediate complaint of March 24, 2012 against the LG decision of March 15, 2012

              for the relevant reasons of the contested decision and the non-remedy decision of 7.5.12 rejected.

             No cost decision!

             Baan's ultra-short-brief-justification for rejecting the immediate complaint finds imitators

 

H29. The OLG decision is issued on July 11, 2012. from 11.7.12 Az 18 W 89/11 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed

             Malsch /Weith / Ms. Baan, with 2 heavily charged judges Malsch + Baan with incorrect entry

               of LG 18 U 223/11 instead of LG-2b o 268/01: Tenor of the OLB decision:

                "Will the ASt immediate complaint of 11/14/11 (p. 1485 ff GA) against the

                 PKH denying decision of the LG-D´dorf from 12.10.11 (p. 1467 ff GA) (2b o 268/01)

                 rejected. The admissible complaint of the ASt remains unsuccessful in the matter.

                The intended legal action does not offer a sufficient prospect of success, § 114 ZPO.

                The LG has, with appropriate justification, which the Senate joins, the

                No prospect of success for the individual pending claims. The complaint

                argument of 14.11.11 justifies how the LG in the NAB of 23.11.11 (GA Bl. 1527 f)

                did not make a different decision. Also the further letter from

                7.12.11 that essentially only with the "disappearance application for bias"

               of November 12, 2002, is not suitable to justify a prospect of success.

               The fraudster (Ms. Baan) has intentionally not written that the procedure

               2b o 268/01 ended with the fraud that the "claims were allegedly barred".

 

H30. The OLG decision is issued on 26.9.2012, for Az 18 W 89/11 (LG-2b o 268/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

              Ms. Baan. Tenor:

            " Are the letters from 23.7.12 hearing complaint against the Senate decision

             11.7.12, the application for admission of the legal complaint and the application for bias

              against Ms. Judge at OLG-Baan rejected as inadmissible"

             Another motion for bias against Fr Baan by the same Ms. Baan was rejected.

             she grants absolution to herself and that is punishable according to § 339 StGB

 

H31. On Sept. 27, 2012, the ASt requests a statement from Ms. Baan

         to the OLG-D´dorf Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12, 18 W 38/12 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01).

         Ms. Baan has always refused to request a business statement.

 

H32. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed an official liability action / PKH, Az 2b o 170/12 against

         NRW the legal bends of the LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser / Köstner- Plümpe

         / Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Hoffmann / Mr. Noltze on Az 2b o 194/07

            and on the part of the OLG judges of the 11th Senate Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

             Wermeckes / Dahm / Ms. Grabensee zu OLG-Az 11 W 40/09 (LG-Az 2b o 194/07).

           The PKH application has been submitted by an illegal LG body (Ms. Brecht / Ms. Jürging / Ms.

          Schumacher, violations of § 75 GG and Art. 101 GG) were rejected

            does the public prosecutor understand the game of LG / OLG criminals?

                     

H33. Again on October 16, 2012, the plaintiff sends a 3rd reminder to OLG-18. Senate because of the

          Ms. Baan's official opinion on the Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12 and 18 W 38/12

 

H34. On October 30, 2012, the appointed RA sent a reminder to OLG-Az 18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12,

          18 W 38/12 for a statement by Ms. Baan on the application for bias in above mentioned Az,

          because of the 51 legal inflections listed.

 

H35. On October 31, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 89/11 (LG 2b o 268/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

         Ms. Baan; Tenor:

        "The complaint of 7/10/12 against OLG decision 26.9.12 is rejected as" inadmissible "".

 

H36. On November 5, 2012 the ASt sends a reminder to Az OLG-Az 18 W 5/11 and Az 18 W 39/12

         (LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 6/11) for an immediate decision on the immediate complaints and

         repeated: Ms. Baan is due to be biased from all complaint procedures at the 18th Senate

                             locked out. Ms. Baan collects the memories to clean her A + C.

 

H37. On November 7, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/12) signed Malsch / Haarmann /

           Ms. Baan. Tenor of the OLG decision

           "The counter notification (= GGD) of July 16, 2012 against OLG decision. December 9, 2012 is rejected

            The rejection request against OLG judge Baan is rejected as inadmissible".

            Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate

           and rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She again awards "absolution" to herself

 

H38. On November 12, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 33/12 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

             Baan; Tenor:

             The hearing complaint dated 26 May 12 against the OLG decision of 16 May 12 is considered

              "inadmissible"discarded. The exclusion request against Ms. Baan is rejected as inadmissible.

             Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate

             and rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She gives "absolution" to herself again.

 

H39. On November 12, 2012 the OLG decision Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Weith /

            Baan; Tenor:

            The hearing complaint dated May 27, 2012 against the OLG decision of May 16, 2012 is considered

            inadmissible discarded. The exclusion request against Ms. Baan is rejected as inadmissible.

           Ms. Baan does not want to hear that she was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate and

              rejects it any application for bias as inadmissible. She again awards "absolution" to herself

       

H40. On November 14, 2012, the As filed a hearing against Az 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/08)

                         Rejection of the application for bias against the offender Ms. Baan

 

H41. On November 15, 2012, the ASt "counter notification" (= GGD) that the OLG decision from

                     November 5, 2012 Az 18 W 89/11 signed by the offender is improper;

                     Ms. Baan is and remains excluded because of the crimes committed in the sense of § 339 StGB

 

H42. On November 21, 2012, the ASt filed a complaint against inaction and an application for partiality

                     Ms. Baan on OLG Az 18 W 8/11 (LG Az 2b o 7/11, lawsuit / PKH of 29.12.2010)

 

H43. On November 24, 2012, another application to exclude Ms. Baan for legal violations

                       within the meaning of § 339 StGB to 18 W 86/10 (LG Az 2b o 145/08).

  

H44. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB to OLG-Az 18 W 76/12 (LG-2b o 170/12 due to legal injuries to Az 2b o 194/07)

 

H45. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

         meaning of § 339StGB zu OLG-Az 18 W 83/12 (LG-2b o 149/12 due to legal defenses to Az 2b o 154/08)

 

H46. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB OLG-Az 18 W 84/12 (LG-2b o 151/12 due to legal injuries to Az 2b o 145/08)

 

H47. On December 13, 2012, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the

          meaning of § 339StGB OLG-Az 18 W (LG-2b o 271/01 due to legal violations to Az 2b o 271/01)

 

H48. On January 13, 2013, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the meaning

           of § 339StGB zu OLG Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01; PKH from July 16, 2012; immediately

 

H49. On January 15, 2013, an application for bias against Ms. Baan due to legal violations within the meaning

         of § 339StGB zu OLG Az 18 W 89/12 (LG-2b o 146/12; PKH from 22nd Aug. 12; immediately - from

         13.11.2012)

 

H50. On January 16, 2013, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 89/12 (LG 2b o 146/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

           Ms. Baan; Tenor:

                        The immediate complaint is inadmissible because it is not signed.

                        The request for bias against Baan is rejected as "inadmissible".

 

H51. On January 16, 2013, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 83/12 (LG 2b o 149/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

         Ms. Baan; Tenor:

                "For the relevant reasons, the contested LG-Decision and the NAB v 14.11.12 and the opinion of the

                  General attorney from 10/10/12and rejected as unfounded on 12/14/12.

                  The brief does not justify a different decision.

                  According to § 72 ZPO, the Senate is not prevented from making a decision regarding

                 of Section 41 No. 1 ZPO if - as in the case of a dispute - the allegation of legal evasion without

                  substantial and understandable justification.

                  Therefore, the application for bias against Baan is based on the allegation of legal infraction

                        rejected as "inadmissible".

 

       Comments:

                               in the 18th Senate, the multiple offender decides on her own crimes

                               and she gives herself absolution.

 

H52. On January 23, 2013, the ASt filed an application for bias against Ms. Baan for legal violations

            i.S.d. § 339 StGB to Az 18 W 2/13 with application for involvement, etc. the files of LG-2b o

            118/99 u. OLG-D´dorf Az 1 Ws 80/11 and many more

 

H53. On March 11, 13 the OLG decision Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12) signed Malsch/Weith/Baan;

Tenor: "The immediate complaint of January 20, 2013 against LG decision of December 20, 2012 due to the

               relevant explanations of the LG decision from 20.12.12 and the NAB from 1/30/13 as rejected

              without reason;

              The petition for bias directed against Ms. Baan is already being used several times

              Plaintiffs given reasons (most recently 18 W 83/12 and 89/12) rejected as inadmissible.

 

       Comments:

                           in the 18th Senate, the multiple offender decides on her own crimes

                                and she gives herself absolution.

 

H54. The OLG decision is issued on 11 March 13. Az 18 W 89/12 (2b o 146/12) signed Malsch / Weith /

          Ms. Baan; Tenor:

       "The hearing complaints of the ASt of January 27, 2013 against the decision of the Senate of 18.1.13

        will rejected "

 

H55. With Decree by Mr. MALSCH on Az 2b o 271/01 dated April 17th, 2013 the ASt will be informed

         that; The files of proceedings 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 268/01 are to be consulted for information

 

          Comments:

                                 Mr. Malsch's new trial fraud is already in preparation

                                                

H56. On Apr. 18, 2013 Ms. Baan sent a message to Az 18 W 1/13 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) that she

              has requested files 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 for information from the LG

 

     Comments:

 

                       The new trial fraud of the 18th Senate on Az 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 118/99

                       is already in preparation

         

H57. The OLG decision is issued on April 23, 2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (LG 2b o 196/12) Malsch/Weith/Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: Hearings from from 28.3.13 against OLG decision 11.3.13 rejected;

        "The ace does not show that this decision entitles him to be heard

        has been injured. The letter of March 28, 2013 does not contain a new, substantial lecture "

 

H58. By writing the ASt to the OLG-18 W 1/13 dated Apr. 24, 2013, the access to Ms. Baan is given

           to the Files 2b o 271/01 and 118/99 denied; she is "Persona non grata"

                           

       With letter from ASt from 17.5.2013 an application for bias against Ms. Baan;

      The exclusion request is due to the offenses i.S.d. § 339 StGB to OLG Az 18 W 44/13

       (LG-Az 2b o 71/08, repeal of the SWFSB) justified.

 

     With letter from ASt from 17.5.2013 an application for bias against Ms. Baan;

      Exclusion request with the offenses in the sense of Section 339 of the Criminal Code committed

       to OLG Az 18 W 45/13 (LG-Az 2b o 67/08, repeal of the SWFSB) justified.

 

H59. The OLG decision is issued on 7 November 2013. Az 18 W 45/13 (LG-2b o 67/08) signed

         Malsch/Weith/ Ms. Baan

         Tenor: The immediate complaint dated 2.5.13 against LG decision. from 23.4.13 (2b o 67/08) is returned

                    The plaintiff confuses the conditions of the pending, which lead to due date of the court fees leads,

                   with the requirements of pending dependency.

 

H60. The OLG decision is issued on 7 November 2013. for Az 18 W 37/12 (2b o 265/11)

             signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

            Tenor: Hearings from from 17.7.12 against OLG decision from 10.07.12 rejected; requirements

                of § 574 ZPO does not exist; Right to be heard not violated.

  

H61. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 48/12 (LG 2b o 238/11)

             Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: "The immediate complaint of the LGG decision of March 16, 2012, which refuses to accept the PKH

                  rejected; The active judge maintains the ASt with honorary and insulting Consider comes, lack of

                  professional competence and alleged Accuse of violations of the law, accuse them of conspiracies,

                 and to be accused of criminal behaviour. Of these are in the present case around twenty judges from

                 the above Courts affected without the ace even in would substantiate its polemic attacks in a case.

                 Therefore, he can be sued for his official liability action on the grounds of the contested LG decision

                 and the NAB decision no PKH approved due to lack of prospect of success will. The Senate in its line-

               up - as happened here - can decide even though the ace also has some members of that

             senate legal and partisan accuses.

               Tangible and the ASt replaces verifiable facts with polemical ones Attacks that are not suitable after

               the judge's exclusion to justify §§ 41 or 42 ZPO. Because the ace involved in every new procedure

               Judges of the previous proceedings for years with criminal Otherwise accusations and requests for bias

               would be dealt with someday came, to which no judge of the LG and / or OLG D'dorf is still in ASt

               procedures may decide.

               Düsseldorf the 18.11.2013; 18th Civil Senate

 

   Comments: The protesting OLG judge Malsch + Ms. Baan shall be their fraud briefly mentioned here

        

             > Ms. Baan was a member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate (2009-2012)

               > to Az 2b o 271/01 (OLG decision March 11, 2008 to Az 18 W 46/07 signed Malsch / Haarmann /

                   Ms. Anderegg (LG 2b o 271/01; crime Strupp-Müller + Engelkamp-Neeser "COVERED")

               > OLG decision from July 10, 2008 to 18 W 39/06 signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms Anderegg;

                  on the illegality of the LG committee (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt,

                  Violations of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG in the above OLG decision) nothing written;

                  So violations "COVERED". The plaintiff may not complain about the LG / OLG violations !!

             > Mr. Malsch's decisions made the "disappearance of the file on Az 2b o 77/08" possible

 

H62. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 82/12 (LG 2b o 148/12)

             Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan; Tenor:

             "The ASt's immediate complaint against the LG decision of 29.10.12 refusing PKH,

              will be terminated accordingly the relevant reasons for the contested and NAB decisions;

                The Senate can decide how to do this.

               The Senate maintains its view that its members are neither under § 41 nor are prevented

               from making a decision in ASt a proceedings pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, insofar as

               So far - neither conveys specific circumstances that suspect serious legal violations,

               especially legal violations, could justify, understandable reasons

              sets out which might justify the concern of bias.

 

       Comments: The reader recognizes Ms. Baan's writing style, as in her resolutions at the 11th Senate.

                            In addition: she gives herself absolution. The OLG-D´dorf stamp ensures the official power.

 

H63. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 5/11 (LG 2b o 129/08)

           Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

            Tenor: The As's immediate complaint against the PKH refusing LGH decision. from 10/12/2009

                        is rejected for the relevant reasons in the contested decision;

                        Düsseldorf 11/18/13; 18th Civil Senate

 

           Comments:

 

                     The reader recognizes the writing style of Mrs. Baan (ultra-short reason for the rejection)

                      as in their resolutions at the 11th Senate.

                       To this end, she gives herself absolution. The OLG-D'dorf stamp ensures the official power.

 

H64. The OLG decision is issued on November 18, 2013. Az 18 W 8/11 (LG 2b o 7/11)

               Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

               Tenor: The As's immediate complaint against the PKH refusing LGH decision. from 18/01/11

                                  is rejected;

                The application for bias against Ms. Baan is rejected as inadmissible !!!.

                The LG refused the PKH to the ASt for its intended lawsuit because it took part in the there

                is insufficient prospect of success and the ASt lacks its personal and economic Conditions

                has not revealed. (NB: demonstrably false!!)

                This is directed against the immediate complaint of the ASt, who also chairs the first instance

                civil chamber unsuccessful because of alleged concern of bias and has filed a complaint.

               The decision on the complaint about the denied PKH is down to the Question of the rejection

               request in the present case.

               Because the PKH could not be granted a PKH because it did not provide any information

               has made to his personal and economic circumstances. (demonstrably false!!)

               He did not make up for this after his complaint, although the LG in his

              contested decision referred to the requirement (LÜGE). It was therefore missing

              the legal minimum requirements, which are not based on an assessment of the involved

              Judges depend and therefore not on suspected bias  could be influenced.

              Otherwise, the Senate also shares the opinion of the LG in its decision from 18.1.11

              that namely the submission of the As an official liability claim acc. § 839 BGB

              in conjunction Article 34 of the Basic Law cannot justify, but is based on unfounded

             accusations exhausted against various judges who in the past participated in the ASt

             involved in the proceedings. The ASt also covers the members of the crucial civil senates

             constantly with baseless allegations and accusations as well Requests for bias which lack

             any real basis. His behavior poses thus proving itself to be an abuse of the law.

           That is why the Senate can decide on the planned occupation, including Judge Baan,

           although the ASt has rejected it in an abusive and inadmissible manner - as biased."

 

    Comments: The reader recognizes in the last lines that Ms. Baan grants absolution to herself;

                litigation from September 2009 to May 2010 as part of the 11th Senate Putsch Club that she

               shares with the other accomplices (Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm /

              Müller) committed allegations or baseless allegations; Displaying the Process fraud on the part 

               of the ASt is allegedly abusive; does the public prosecutor notice ???

 

             Of course, on 6 December 2013, the legal complaint against the Senate decision (OLG decision.

            Az 18 W 82/12 concerning LG 2b o 148/12) signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan. not too; The

            requirements of Section 574 of the ZPO was allegedly not fulfilled.

            No interest that her crimes being dealt by BGH-Judges

 

H65. On 6 December 2013 the OLG decision was issued. Az 18 W 45/13 (LG 2b o 67/08)

         Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

        Tenor: "The As' s complaint against the Senate decision of November 7th, 13th is just like the

               Application for admission of the legal complaint against this decision rejected as inadmissible.

               Reasons: the decision on a complaint against a value in dispute is not the legal complaint

               acc. 574 ff ZPO opened, but the further complaint acc. Section 68 (1) 66 (4) GKG.

               However, this is only permissible if the LG and not, as here, the OLG has decided as an appeal court.

           The admission of another complaint the law does not provide for the BGH and therefore cannot be

             requested by the plaintiff

                Therefore, the decision of the Senate of November 7, 2013 is final and no longer appealable,

                would theoretically comb a hearing complaint § 321a ZPO into consideration.

                However, the complaint is only admissible if it is shown in due time and form that the Court

                in its decision the right of the party to be heard has significantly violated the decision.

 

     Comments: The OLG committee with Ms. Baan allegedly "has no decision-making relevance

                          violated the plaintiff's right to be heard ". The OLG / LG litigation and legal violations

                           It is not enough to describe and therefore accuse them. The formalities are important.

 

H66. On 10 December 2013, the OLG decision was issued. 18 W 48/12 (LG 2b o 238/11)

          Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

         Tenor: The hearing complaints and application of November 29, 2013 for admission of the legal complaint

                      against OLG decision from 18.11.13 are rejected because the legal

                      Requirements, sections 321a and 574 ZPO are not met.

 

          Comments: The first LG order to the OLG (with decision of November 26, 2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                          /Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht) that the plaintiff 's claims to Az 2b o 271/01 as "time-barred" must

                         be declared, has reached the Malsch and the first thoughts already taken

 

H67. On December 10th, 2013 Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan enact the OLG decision. 18 W 5/11 (LG 2b o 129/08).

           Tenor: "The application by the ASt for admission of the legal appeal against the Senate decision

                         dated November 18, 2013 and his hearing on December 1, 2013 are rejected.

                         The legal requirements for admission of the legal complaint against the Senate resolution of

                       November 18, 2013 has not been met Section 574 ZPO.

                         The A's hearing complaint is unfounded, § 321a ZPO.

                       Since the Senate published the contested PKH decision of the LG on October 12, 2009 in the

                      Justification and in the result as correct, he must in his complaint decision do not go into

                     the details of the ASt in detail, which are already broad Stretches in unsustainable legal versions,

                       conspiracy theories and insults against the judges concerned.

 

        Comments: The fraudster (Ms. Baan) and member No. 4 of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate accused

                           the ASt due to alleged "conspiracy theories"; the next conspiracy of the 18th Senate

                          it's in preparation; however, it is not familiar with "statute of limitations" and can

                          do not argue legally, therefore she (Ms. Baan) will soon be out of OLG-D´dorf 18.

                         Senate removed. Malsch has already made up his mind. Ms. Baan is a burden for Malsch

        

H68. On September 25, 2014, the OLG decision is issued. Az 18 W 30/14 (LG 2b o 17/14)

         signed Malsch / Weith / Ms Baan.

               Tenor: The immediate complaint of April 26, 2014 against the decision of April 4, 2014

                            the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf is for the appropriate reasons the

                             contested decision and the NAB decision from 29.4.2014 back pointed.

                     Noticeably no cost decision.

 

  Comments: Ms. Baan is a burden for Malsch; he wants to be unloaded for the next trial fraud and search

                       for Young OLG judges. Malsch has already received the LG order dated 07/07/2014 and

                     understood;  the plaintiff's claims for damages under Az 2b o 271/01 must be declared as

                     "SUPERANNUATED"

 

H69. On October 1, 2014, the OLG decision was issued. 18 W 4/12 (LG 2b o 170/08)

                 Malsch / Haarmann / Baan

        Tenor: Hearings from 14.11.12 against OLG decision 7.11.12 rejected Because of legal

                    no hearing injury; No change in the cost decision prompted.

 

H70. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. Az 18 W 83/12 (LG 2b o 149/12) Weith / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

                 (Why not the chairman Malsch ?!)

           Tenor: "The hearing complaint of the ASt from January 29th, 2013

                 will rejected. Breaches of official duty allegedly not conclusively stated! "

 

H71. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. 18 W 21/12 (LG 2b o 23/12)

         Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

           Tenor:  Hearings from 12.4.2012 against OLG decision from 30.3.12 rejected as inadmissible;

                           Legal complaint not allowed; Not a word about costs or cost decisions !!!

 

  Comments: Ms. Baan is already a burden for Malsch; he wants to be unloaded for the next trial fraud

                      He search for Young OLG judges. Malsch has already received the LG order dated 07/07/2014

                     and understood;

                    the plaintiff's claims for damages under Az 2b o 271/01 must be declared as "Superannuated".

                    The preparations for the transfer of Ms. Baan and the selection for the new one have already

                   been made.

 

H72. The OLG decision is issued on 2.10.14. 18 W 27/12 (LG 2b o 22/12) Malsch / Haarmann / Baan

          Tenor:

                 "Immediate complaint of February 20, 2012 against LG decision of February 8, 2014 and NAB of

                   March 21, 2012 rejected because of the applicable LG reasons.

                     Cost decision not initiated.

      

   Comments: (Malsch's recommendation was:)

                       Provide no reason for the plaintiff to challenge the cost decision

 

H73. The OLG decision is issued on 6.10.14. for Az 18 W 39/12 (LG 2b o 6/11)

               Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

          Tenor: "The immediate complaint of 4.2.11 against the decision of 18.1.2011 of the 2b civil

                         Chamber of LG-D´dorf is for the correct reasons of the contested decision

                        in the version of the non-remedial decision (= NAB) from 7.2.2011 rejected.

                      The application for bias against Ms. Baan dated 5.2.12 is due to abuse of rights

                      rejected as inadmissible

                      According to the assessment of Section 72 (2) ZPO, Ms. Baan is not in a decision regarding

  • § 41 No. 1 ZPO prevented if - as in the case of a dispute - without substantiated and

                   comprehensible There is a clear justification. A judge's official opinion was given

                    its dispensable (striking no cost decision)

       

     Comments: OLG decision after 43 months. Showing the blockade is abusive !!!

 

H74. On October 9, 2014 (after 2 years !!) the OLG decision is issued. 18 W 84/12

           Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

         Tenor: the immediate complaint from 8.11.12 against LG decision from 5.11.12 and NAB from 15.11.12

                      is rejected. The application for bias against Ms. Baan as abusive discarded. After evaluating                        

                     section 72 of the ZPO, no decision within the meaning of section 41 of the ZPO hindered. This also

                    applies to the rejection of Ms. Brecht not by official channels excluded: The decisions of the LG are

                    not illegal.     Not a word about costs and no cost decision!

 

On December 26, 2014 (Az 2b o 258/14), the plaintiff filed a new official liability action / PKH because of the delay

in the 18th Senate, in particular because of the role of Ms. Baan in delaying the decision on Az 2b o 271/01

and the resulting ones Damage for the realization of the patent "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM".

Az 2b o 258/14 is theoretically completed in 2019

 

On January 12, 2015 the LG decision is issued, Az 2b o 258/14, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht / Mr.

       Feldmann PKH application from 12/26/14 rejected because claims from 2b o 271/01 allegedly "barred".

 

Comments:

 

             Already the "FOURTH ORDER" of the LG-2b chamber to the OLG (18th Senate) that the compensation

              claims of the plaintiff to Az 2b o 271/01 have to be declared as "barred" (first: by decision from

              26.11.2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Fr.Jürging/Fr.Brecht; the second: by decision of 28.5.2014

              (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Ms. Freytag; the third: signed with a remedy decision of 7 July 2014.

                 Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Feldmann (the latter intern, i.e. judge on trial)

 

In April. In 2015, Ms. Glaeser registered as a member of the 18th Senate; in May 2015 the public prosecutor's

office in D'dorf (decision of public prosecutor Ms. Dr. Frömgen) declined to investigate Malsch and

Ms. Baan; allegedly the above no legal penalty, no crime committed.

 

Ms. Frömgen knew that the preparations at the 18th Senate, OLG-D´dorf, for the process fraud

from 3 September 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) are in full swing ??? and

granted the process fraudsters (Malsch & Co) freedom with their decision of May 2015 ??

 

Summary; Who is Who Lawbreaker/Trial Fraud/Criminal at LG/OLG-D´dorf

 

Since the filing of official liability claims on June 21, 1999 (2b o 118/99), on February 5, 2001 (2b o 271/01),

and on November 20, 2001 (2b o 268/01), the LG / OLG judges have only violated the law / Crimes / procedural

fraud committed to derail and then destroy the official liability actions with claims for damages due to the

crimes of the FA-Mettmann against the plaintiff.

The criminals have even been promoted !!!

 

The offenses started with Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter /Mr Schumacher in 2000

and then they went on with Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Galle /

Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Habich (2002-2009); Offenses indisputable.

 

Two times (2000, 2008) the LG judges (Tannert / Fuhr / Stöve / Wolks-Falter and Mr. Schumacher, and then

Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser) tried to eliminate the plaintiff as partially incapable of trial.

Everything out of care duty ??? Penalty according to § 339 StGB: 5 years in prison

 

In 2007, the LG judges, with the help of the cost official Habich, successfully served the suit

Block for 4 years (2006-2010). The fraudster (Strupp-Müller) was even promoted.

 

On April 16, 2008 the plaintiff survived an attempted murder on the A5 motorway south of Karlsruhe;

Who planned the murder and who was the murderer? The authorities are silent.

 

Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann participated in dozens of lawsuits in the years 2009-2013

under the leadership of Mrs. Tigges or under the leadership of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

 

From 2010-2016 the negotiation date for Az 2b o 271/01 v.A.w. is 6 times postponed;

The files would have been with the OLG again and again; in 2007-11 several leaves disappear!

 

The Putsch Club of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate with 7 judges (2009-2012) tries to eliminate the plaintiff

with 99 resolutions; Mrs. Jungclaus / Mrs. Baan grant absolution to themselves and to the other accomplices

of the fraud (Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm)

 

Ms. Baan accuses the ASt of making unfounded allegations against the judges; but what is baseless

not proven to some extent by Ms. Baan. Therefore earned the title of Ms. B (l) aan-B (l) aan.

 The people rightly say: "A crow does not chop out another eye"

 

The 2 decisions of November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014 unequivocally show the intention of the LG judges

Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Jürging, and Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freytag to

declare the claims as "barred". The first time i.e. on November 26, 2012 the claims to Az 2b o 271/01

would be time-barred on December 31, 2009. The second time with a decision dated May 28, 2014 as

"barred" on June 30, 2010. All violations of duty due to duty of care?

 

On July 18, 2012 the rapporteur Ms. Brecht tried to convince the newly appointed RA by telephone to

discontinue her mandate for Az 2b o 271/01. What made Ms. Brecht do it? Duty of care ?? or blind hatred ??

or pressure from the Stockschlaeder-Nöll; Punishment: prison

 

On July 7, 2014 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht /Mr Feldmann, "order" with NAB to the OLG-

18. Senate unmistakably the "LIMITATION of the claims for damages" of the plaintiff. Punishment: prison

Is the statute of limitations on July 7th, 2014, sent out of duty of care ???

 

The OLG committee of the 18th Senate Malsch / Ms. Glasses / Anger to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 manipulated on

3.9 2015 the legal texts of the BGB a.F. to come to the conclusion that the claims on July 31, 2006 were

time-barred.

 

    Was the manipulation of the legal texts of the BGB a.F. on September 3, 2015, to come to the result

    that the claims for damages would be time-barred on July 31, 2006, also from duty of care been done ???

    Are the allegations baseless? Penalty under the Criminal Code: prison for offenders.

 

The LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach unconditionally assume the trial amount of the

OLG-18 Senate (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) from 3.9.2015 in the LG final judgment of 11.5.2016 and

declare the claims for damages as alleged barred on July 31, 2006; but on May 30, 2016 Stockschlaeder-Nöll

and Ms. Gundlach signed a voluntary declaration of bias without any time limit.

Do the above Women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach) approved the OLG process fraud in order

to fulfill the duty of care towards the plaintiff ??? or because of blind hatred?

 

On August 30, 2017, the well-known fraudsters Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser rejected the PKH for the (appeal)

appointment 18 U 69/16 on the grounds that the claims for damages on "June 30, 2000" would have expired.

Do the above Women (Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser) committed the new process fraud on August 30, 2017

only out of duty of care? and the claims for damages declared statute-barred on June 30, 2000 ???.

 

On October 18, 2017, the OLG committee Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner dismissed the appeal

18 U 69/16 on the grounds (as on August 30, 2017) that the claims for damages were allegedly "barred" on

June 30, 2000.

Do the above Women (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) committed the new process fraud on

October 18, 2017 only out of duty of care and declared the claims for damages to be statute-barred

on June 30, 2000 ??

 

The process fraud is always indicated, but the accomplices never wanted to see it

 

Many LG / OLG judges involved in the legal fraud against the plaintiff have been promoted.

also by chance ?? or with salary bonus due to transportation e.g.

 

  1. Ms. Fuhr (2000/2001) promoted to OLG
  2. Ms. Glaeser on August 15, 2019 as Deputy Chairwoman of the OLG-D´dorf 18th Civil Senate
  3. Ms. Stöve (2003) as LG chairwoman
  4. Ms. Schmidt-Kötters as OLG judge
  5. Ms. Wolks-Falter as OLG judge (2010/2011)
  6. Mr. Schumacher as LG presiding judge and then
  7. Mr. Schwarz promoted as LG chairman
  8. Ms Brückner-Hoffmann as chairwoman of the LG judge in 2003
  9. Ms. Strupp-Müller in 2008 as judge for LG
  10. Ms. Köstner-Plümpe as OLG judge
  11. Ms. Brecht (2015) gets a job at the OLG-D´dorf and
  12. Ms. Freytag (2015) is promoted to Chair LG judge.
  13. Ms. Dr. Hoffmann was subsequently promoted to chairwoman of the LG judge
  14. Ms. Grabensee, the Member ofPutsch Club of the 11th Senate,
  15.             has been promoted to OLG-D´dorf chairwoman judge,
  16. Mr H.-G. Müller, Member of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, promoted to OLG-D'dorf presiding judge.
  17. Mr Bünten, "Capo" of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, promoted as President of the LG Duisburg
  18. Ms. Jungclaus, rank 2 of the Putsch Club of the 11th Senate, as vice president of the LG-D´dorf

 

Some other parties to litigation fraud have not been mentioned here.

(Malsch/Anger/Ms Kirschner/Unger/Ms Baan etc)

 

The cost decisions of the above Trial fraudsters challenged and never decided.

 

The requests for annulment of the decisions rejecting the LG / OLG-PKH and the LG / OLG

judgments due to the fraud by the LG / OLG judges are still not being cancelled.

 

The bank seizures since 1986-1989 for alleged tax evasion by the criminals of the FA-Mettmann are still

not lifted.

 

The public prosecutor is hereby sought against the LG / OLG trial fraudsters named

to start an investigation and bring the accused to the judge's court

Thera are many CRIMES according to § 339 of the Criminal Code.

 

I am available for further information and for further evidence (which is understandably not included here

so that the volume does not increase excessively).

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Attached documents

 

  1. Tannert's Manuscript of the "order" dated March 31, 2000 to AG-Essen;

                                               Supervisor with reservation of consent

  1. Ms. Tannert's official statement of May 18, 2001
  2. Manuscript, draft of the decision of July 2, 2001 Mrs. Wolks-Falter signed

                                             "in representation of the chairwoman"

  1. LG decision from 2.7.2001 (rejection of the application for bias against Tannert) signed

                                               Ms. Stöve / Ms Wolks-Falter / Ms. Schmidt-Kötters

  1. Manuscript, note dated July 4th, 2001 from Mrs. Tannert to Wo-Fa that because of § 47 ZPO not with

                                            "in representation of the chairwoman " may sign the decision

  1. Ms. Wolks-Falter signs the decision on July 6, 2001 (rejection of the separate Az for the

         Lawsuit of 5.2.2001) as a "single judge" although she was not.

  1. Wolks-Falter on July 20, 2001 sends the RA complaint to the OLG-D´dorf as a decision

                                            "Single judge" with a few handwritten words

  1. LG separation decision of November 29, 2001, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll, " in representation of the

                                                           chairwoman "

9.---

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 to Az 2b o 118/99 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 129/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 142/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 143/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 23.3.2009 to Az 2b o 172/08 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 194/07 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 to Az 2b o 268/01 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

        Seelmann of the AG-Essen for a supervisor) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. LG decision from 24.3.2009 on Az 2b o 271/01 (rejection of the rejection application against

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser because of the secret requests and emails to judges

          Seelmann des AG-Essen) signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr.Hoffmann

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from May 20, 2009 on Az 2b o 118/99 (ordering the end result

           of the OLG about the immediate complaint from April 15, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Dr.Hoffmann

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 129/08 (the immediate complaint from

            9.4.2009 against the decision of 23.3.2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 142/08 (the immediate complaint from

            April 12, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 172/08 (the immediate complaint from

            11.4.2009 against the decision of 23.3.2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

  1. LG non-remedial decision (= NAB) from April 15, 2009 on Az 2b o 194/07 (the immediate complaint from

            April 8, 2009 against the decision of March 24, 2009 will be forwarded to the OLG)

            signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Noltze

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Bünten / Mielke / Müller
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 on Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Baan
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.9.2009 to Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

 

  1. Official statement of 7 December 2009 by Mr. Bünten for 14 OLG Az
  2. ---
  3. ---
  4. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated February 23, 2010 of the notification of the OLG resolutions

                                                                                                     of February 16, 2010

  1. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated February 25, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions

                                                                                                       of February 18, 2010

  1. Copy of the 8 envelopes dated February 27, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions

                                                                                                       of February 22, 2010

  1. Copy of the 6 envelopes dated 2.3.2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of 22.2.2010
  2. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated 7.4.2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of 30.3.2010
  3. Copy of the 14 envelopes dated May 21, 2010 of the notification of the OLG decisions of May 12, 2010

45.OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

  1. ​​OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

   14 resolutions of 16.2.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Wermeckes/Ms. Grabensee/Dahm

 

59.OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) sign. Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

71st OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) sign. Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller

14 resolutions of 18.2.10 of the process frauds mentioned above Ms. Jungclaus/Ms. Baan/Wermeckes/Müller

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

       14 resolutions of 22.2.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus /

                                                                               Wermeckes /Ms Baan / Müller; Everyone is silent about it

 

87.OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm
  13. OLG-D´dorf Dec. 30.3.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

     14 resolutions of 30.3.2010 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Wermeckes/Ms. Grabensee/Dahm

 

101.OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2bo 271/01), signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) signed by Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08) signed Ms Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07) signed by Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) signed Fr Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms.Baan / Wermeckes
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08) signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller

             14 resolutions of 31.3.10 of process frauds Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes / Müller

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 38/09 (2b o 154/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 40/09 (2b o 194/07), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan

120th OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller

121st OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 42/09 (2b o 172/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller

122nd OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 44/09 (2b o 145/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 46/09 (2b o 29/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08), signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller

127th OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 54/09 (2b o 118/99), signed Bünten / Ms. Baan / Müller

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.5.2010, Az 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

14 decision of 12.5.10 of the process frauds mentioned above sign. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /

                                      Ms .Baan /Miller; Undermining of the law by the OLG judge.

 

  1. BVerfG decision June 11, 2010, Az 2 BvR 845/10, signed Osterloh / Mellinghoff / Gerhard

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 16 June 2010, Az 11 W 19/10 (2b o 203/08), signed Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller

 

In the following resolutions, with one or two fraudsters writes to the decision-making committee and

relieves the remaining process fraudsters; reject the applications for bias as inadmissible !!!

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 29.12.2010, Az 11 W 77/10 (2b o 129/08), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 28.1.2011, Az 11 W 94/10 (LG 2b o 45/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.1.2011, Az 11 W 55/10 (LG 2b o 203/09) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Fr.Baan / Müller
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 31.1.2011, Az 11 W 79/10 (LG 2b o 121/10 separated from 2b o 271/01) signed.

                   Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Müller; Rejection as inadmissible of the application for partiality

                   October 23, 2010 against Ms. Baan/Müller/Wermeckes/Ms. Jungclaus. "Nemo judex in causa sua"

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 10.2.2011, Az 11 W 97/10 (2b o 177/10), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Müller
  2. LG-D´dorf decision 18.2.2011, Az 2b or 203/09, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Keiser / Ms. Mossbrucker
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 9.3.2011, 11 W 97/10 (2b or 177/10), signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 9.3.2011, Az 11 W 87/10 (2b o 268/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 17.3.2011, Az 11 W 7/11 (2b o 203/09), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.4.2011, 11 W 61/10 (2bo 145/08) signed Ms. Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes

                           Applications for bias against the fraudsters Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes /

                           / Müller will be rejected as inadmissible (abusive) !!!

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 21.4.2011, Az 11 W 7/11 (2b o 203/09), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 27.4.2011, Az 11 W 55/11 (2b o 203/09), signed. Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Koewius
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.5.2011 Az 11 W 83/10 signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Wurmeckes
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.6.2011, 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.8.2011, 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01), signed Roitzheim / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 20.12.2011, 11 W 81/10 (2b o 170/08), signed Roitzheim / Wermeckes / Koewius
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 29.2.2012, 11 W 83/10, signed Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Baan / Koewius

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.5.2012, Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 11.7.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  3. OLG-D´dorf decision 26.9.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  4. OLG-D´dorf decision 5.11.2012, Az 18 W 89/11 (2b o 268/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  5. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.11.2012, Az 18 W 4/12 (2b o 170/08), signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan
  6. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.11.2012, Az 18 W 38/12 (2b o 271/01), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  7. OLG-D´dorf decision 16.1.2013, Az 18 W 83/12 (2b o 149/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  8. OLG-D´dorf decision 11.3.2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  9. OLG-D´dorf decision 23.4.2013, Az 18 W 9/13 (2b o 196/12), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  10. OLG-D´dorf decision 7.11.2013, Az 18 W 45/13 (2b o 67/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  11. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 5/11 (2b o 129/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  12. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 48/12 (2b o 238/11), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  13. OLG-D´dorf decision 18.11.2013, Az 18 W 8/11 (2b o 7/11), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  14. OLG-D´dorf decision 6.12.2013, Az 18 W 45/13 (2b o 67/08), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan

 

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 2.5.2012, Az 2b o 271/01, signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Hoffmann / Ms. Brecht

 

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 25.9.2014, Az 18 W 30/14 (2b o 17/14), signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan
  2. OLG-D´dorf decision 2.10.2014, Az 18 W 27/12 (2b o 22/12), signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Baan

 

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 21.3.2012, Az 2b o 22/12, signed Schwarz / Fröml / Ms. Brecht

 

  1. Letter from the plaintiff dated January 21, 2015 to Az 2b o 258/14; illegally tinkered LG committee

                                           makes decisions based on incorrect assumptions

  1. LG-D´dorf decision 16.6.2016, Az 2b o 76/16, signed Ms. Jugclaus / Ms. Harsta / Witte
  2. LG-D´dorf decision 8.11.2016, Az 2b o 76/16, signed Ms. Jugclaus / Ms. Harsta / Wink
  3. LG-D´dorf decision 7.6.2018, Az 2b o 258/14, signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /Mr Renner

 

The "Sofisma" (translated from ancient Greek):

 

"A student contacted the Rhetoric law teacher and made the following agreement with him.

"I pay the tuition fees when I win the first process" The teacher accepted it.

After completing the training, the student did not want to pay and the teacher went to court:

 

> "The teacher argued: If I win the process, the student has to, because of me

    Your decision to pay the tuition; but if I lose, my student has it

    won the first trial, and by agreement he has to pay to me the tuition fees.

  

> "The student argued: If I don't pay tuition fees after the court's decision

      then my teacher receives nothing; but if I lose the first trial, then after

     Agreement, I don't owe the teacher anything either ".

 

Unfortunately, the story did not tell us how the judges at that time decided.

 

The reader discovers "Sofisma" in the LG-D´dorf decision of 8.11.2016, Az 2b o 76/16,

   signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Harsta / Wink; Page 7, penultimate paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

(Translation from German to English made with the GOOGLE translation program,

which is changed in some paragraphs; Please announce errors)

Visitors: Today 31 | Yesterday 22 | Week 53 | Month 668 | All 42109

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