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)
(Revision of 9. Febr. 2019)
Welcome to the website of Dr. Ing. Th. Sartoros
The justice of a banana republic of the European Union was the title of an article (you can find it in the respective language, or in the category "content and consequences of disputes with the tax authorities) written in 1994 on the occasion of the miscarriage of justice on part of the judges (Dr. Nieland / Morsbach / Naujocks) of the 11th Senate Finance Court (= FG) Dusseldorf; they had aided, so that the process fraud of the tax office (=FA) Mettmann to Az 11 K 518/89 - committed on 6.6 .1991 - succeeds; then the involvement of the prosecutor of Dusseldorf city (called Mr. Blazy) the, who ordered the FG file and then the file disappeared, so that a restitution claim fails, and a petition to the parliament of NRW state, make today (Febr. 2019) only a small part of the 39-year history.
In summary: The FA Mettmann tried to blackmail the plaintiff, to build his factory in the Federal Republik of Germay (=BRD =FRG) and to realize his patents here, and committed 7 frauds at the FG to Dopp Error detection and to hide the error about 511,000.- DM. Nevertheless, it could not avoid the defeats in more than 30 FG cases and had to repay part of the more than 264,500, - DM Plundered (for alleged tax evasion) to the plaintiff in 2006 (i.e. after 27 years !, without interest !). The accused Dr. Nieland because of his aid to fraud and because of right wing inflections death only
3 month after the accuse.
see report in more languages under "miscellaneous", "WHY FRG MUST COMPENSATE" in Greek, Article "Why Germany must pay .." on english look there)
Most offenses in office (§ 331 StGB) and right deflections in sense of § 339 StGB ( = Codex of criminal law of Germany), took place at the LG (= Landgericht = regional tribunal) and OLG-Dusseldorf (= court of appeal) (see OLG-Dusseldorf, "Enforcement proceedings" acts of the smorgasbord in Judges-gown since 1999 until the end of 2016 and under "Legal or Newsletter"; Translations into Greek / Italian / English unfortunately delay).
The sequel was first followed by the judges of the 2b Civil chamber of the LG (= Regional Court of Düsseldorf), twice (first in March 2000, Mrs. Tannert, Mrs. Fuhr, Mrs. Stöve, Mrs. Wolks-Falter, and Mr. Schumacher) and then in July -Sept., 2008, Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser) had secretly attempted to turn off the plaintiff personally as a partial (!! ??) incapacitated (i.e. only for the pending in the 2b civil chamber proceedings) and more than 60 unlawful decisions have adopted in order to trivialize the crimes of the FA tax-office-Mettmann and to reject the 3 official liability actions (2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01).
(See "official statement" of 18.5.2000 of Mrs Tannert on the application for bias of 20 April 2000,
to be found in "Düsseldorf Regional Court", "the offenses of Mrs. Tannert and Mrs. Wolks-Falter, supplemented on 28.1.2017 )
After many complaints of the advocate (= RA) and the plaintiff (because of the secret request of March 2000 of the Mrs Tannert at the district court of city Essen with order for a supervisor with reservation of consent, and because of the proof decision from 28.11.2000 signed Mrs Tannert / Mrs Fuhr / Schumacher to Clarification of the (partial!?) Disability of the plaintiff, as well as because of the fraudulent decision of the "swindler" WOLKS-FALTER on 6.7.2001 and because of the refusal of the four members gang in Toga to award a separate file reference for the claim of 5.2.2001) the Mrs. TANNERT / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Stöve / Mrs. WOLKS-FALTER and Mr. Schumacher are removed on Nov. 2001 from the 2b Civil chamber.
The new line-up (with Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co) separated the combined procedures of 21 June 1999 and 5 February 2001 and awarded separate file references (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01),
as well as the proof decision of 28.11.2000 signed Mrs Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr / Schumacher canceled. She (Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co) makes mistakes and the question of the process capability of the plaintiff only on 23 Jan. 2003 was finally resolved.
Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll had put pressure on reporter Mrs Brückner-Hofmann for a whole year (Feruary 2002-Apr. 2003) to "refuse all applications of the plaintiff so that the judiciary would not get bogged down";
Furthermore, (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) requested the reporter Mrs Brückner-Hofmann to delete the sentence from the minutes of the hearing dated 12.11.2002 that "the objection of limitation of defendant does not apply and, after consultation with the paragraph specialists, the claimant's claims are not statute-barred ".
Mrs Brückner-Hofmann had to give in. Some Months later is Mrs Brückner-Hofmann Chair-Wooman of a Chamber in regional Tribunal of Düsseldorf
An application of bias of 18.12.2002 against Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll to Az 2b o 271/01 is only on
17 January 2008 (after 6 full years! And no one has disturbed the recollections of the plaintiff) on
the part of an illegally formed and controlled committee (Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe/Mrs. Vaupel/Mrs. Schmidt, because of violation of § 75 GVG (= Judicature act) and Art. 101 GG ( = fundamental law) as unfounded; on the illegality of the LG Board, the OLG-11. Senate did not write a word; on the other hand, an immediate complaint has been made; after the decision of the OLG 11th senate (Dr. Bünten & Co) landed the case in 2009 at the BGH (= Bundesgerichtshof = German federal supreme court).
The BGH also avoided commenting on the illegality of the LG bodies. (see also the "red thread" to find under the heading BGH; it appears in the next time)
Despite the suspension of § 47 ZPO (= civil procedure rules), Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll signed a series of resolutions (inter alia also on 11.5.2005 for the discharge of Mrs. Strupp-Müller from a application for expulsion of 5.5.2003 because of partiality).
The plaintiff submitted on April 14, 2006, on January 14, 2007 and January 20, 2007, as well as in further remarks the application for cancellation of the unlawful LG decisions signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll since 18.12.2002 or signed by Strupp-Müller since 5.5 .2003) as well as the OLG ( = Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) decisions, which refer to the above-mentioned unlawful LG decisions.
The applications for annulment dated 14.1.2007 and 20.1.2007 were sent to the OLG (Higher Regional Court 18th Senate Az 18 W 23/05) on 24.1.2007 and on 2.2.2007 and buried there,
(i.e. until today Aug. 2018 (after 11.5 years or until the end of the procedure) were not decided.
The mentioned Proofs (pleadings with the claimant's applications) have been deliberately removed from the court records/files.
On Aug. 2, 2002, "LOADINGS for the hearing on Oct. 1, 2002" and after complaining of the Office Financial inspection-Düsseldorf (which informed LG judges that there are no verbal negotiations
in PKH proceedings (= legal aid for the costs of process), have been canceled, and the leaves of the court records/files (= GA) disappeared and rewritten as "INVITATIONS for the discussion date on 12.11.2002".
That was the first conspicuous file manipulation on Az 2b o 271/01 was found. At a hearing of the parties on 12.11.2002, the representative (Nissen) of the defendant State of North Rhine-Westphalia (=NRW) had confirmed that
"the bank pledges were causal for the business failure of the plaintiff's business,
but the underlying tax assessments were not unlawful".
As a result, the plaintiff submitted the application for a declaration on 19.2.2003 and referred on 8. Juli 2008 to the publication of the Judge Stuttmann (see LG 2b o 77/08) and this is only due on 12.7.2010 by LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Weitzel) and by OLG (Malsch & Co) on 25.1.2012 Az 18 W 71/10 (2b o 118/99) has been rejected.
Amazingly, the OLG Board 0f 18. Senate (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) in the decision of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 recognized the illegality of the tax assessments as binding (after 12.5 years!), because this was already established by the FG-Düsseldorf. For years he (Malsch & Co) had refused. (see lines above)
The legal aid applications are formed and controlled by LG committees in violation of § 75 GVG or
§ 47 ZPO [Mrs Brückner-Hofmann / Mrs. Strupp-Müller / Mrs. Adam, or Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Strupp-Müller / xxx, or Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffman / Mrs. Brecht) rejected as unfounded i.e. compensation of the plaintiff for the 27-year-long capital deprivation and the related crimes of the tax office Mettmann rejected, and the complaints against the LG decisions by also unlawfully formed OLG bodies of the 18th Senate (Malsch / Haarmann / Mrs. Schröder, or Malsch / Mrs. Baan / Weith, or Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) has been rejected as unfounded.
In the process, Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll has ordered her wishes regarding the content of the OLG decisions by means of the unimpeachable no-remedy-decisions.
On 21 Apr. 2006, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll determined the value in dispute and entered it in the (GA)
court files: 1,838,180.46 € (see GA sheet Nr. 408).
After that, the LG judges and cost officials should have been correct.
On 13 July 2006, the cost official (Mr Habich) in the GA sheet Nr. 408 and GA sheet Nr. 413 registered that the court fees for Az 2b o 271/01, amounted 21,021.77 €.
So until July 2006, no lawsuit and no murder of the plaintiff was planned.
Here it is inserted that the LG / OLG judges were excited as the plaintiff in April 2006 and again on 14.1.2007 and 20 January 2007 the application submitted for cancellation of the unlawful decisions signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll since 18.12.2002, as well signed by Mrs. Strupp-Müller on 5.5.2003.
In addition was requested, the annulment of the OLG decisions of the 11th and 18th Senate, which were based on the LG decisions.
The application for annulment has been sent to OLG-Az 18 W 23/05 and has not been decided there (i.e. until after the end of the trial). (Instead of a ruling, the reader finds in the decision of the OLG-Düsseldorf on Az 18 U 69 / 16 of 18 Oct. 2017 a justification, documents are still to be published)
As a reaction of the accused LG / OLG judges to the repeal requests the involvement of the secret services is to be considered.
Those who had until then (the end of 2006) only the observation of the plaintiff as task, were now instructed to break into the apartment of the plaintiff, steal data and documents and collect everything criminally relevant. The simple reason was that: the Greek had no Internet connection;
After they found nothing incriminating, planned and carried out on April 16, 2008 covered as a car accident attempt of murder against the plaintiff on the A5 motorway, south of Karlsruhe (similar circumstances as in the politically motivated murder of chief prosecutor Mr. Jörg Hillinger; dark figures wanted avoid the detection on the payment of bribe money.
How could the killer know that the claimant was traveling with a foreign car on that particular day?
how could the killer know the suitor's car colour and vehicle number and route and lurk for him?
who paid the killer?
The plaintiff has reported the incidents but the authorities remain silent until today (Febr. 2019).
The OLG-Düsseldorf (11th Senate and 18th Senate) has always kept silent about the more than 1,000 evidences provided for the crimes of the FA-Mettmann and about the illegality of the LG committees
(ie: Omertá, as with the mafioses).
When the court fees for two official liability claims were fully paid in instalments (end of 2006), the LG-Camarilla (Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / H. Galle, by order of 18.9.2007) blocked the service of the lawsuits to the opposing party (NRW); in the one case for almost two years and in the other (LG Az 2b o 271/01) for four full years (that is to say the claim was not delivered until the end of September 2010!) and thus deprives the respective process; but when an RA asked for a month's reprieve so he could talk to the doctor and claimant about the report, the application was denied.
The full payment of court fees for Az 2b o 271/01 since December 2006 has also been confirmed by the OLG (Higher Regional Court, Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) on Sept. 3, 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13.
Also by Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co, but only in the final judgment of 11.5.2016 to Az 2b o 271/01, the full payment of court fees confirmed. The 2b Chamber was therefore obliged to deliver the action in Jan. 2007 to the defendant country (NRW).
Instead of delivery the lawsuit, the above mentioned planned trial fraud on 18.9.2007
The process fraud of the judges (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) on September 18, 2007 organized and controlled by Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll and was made possible by the cost official (Mr. Habich);
The latter wrote an entry in the court records (GA sheet Nr. 476R) on Aug. 29, 2007, that
"after provisionally accepted amounts in dispute € 2,747,843.63".
"The court fees amount to € 29,304.69, after payment of € 19,850
the plaintiff still owes 9,454.69 €"
Why only 19,850 € ? (instead of paid 22,200 € ) and why not the binding value determined by Stockschlaeder-Nöll? followed by no answer from the accused (Mr. Habich)
The fact that both the LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Strupp-Muller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle)
With the help of the cost official (Mr. Habich) by resolution of 18.9.2007, as well as the OLG (Higher Regional Court , especially H. Malsch) in resolutions denied the full payment of court fees for years, cost the putschists a new official liability action in May 2016 with LG-Az 2b o 76/16; see also LG decision on Az 2b o 76/16 of 16.6.2016, signed Mrs. Jungclaus / Mrs. Harsta / Witte, due to the "self-rejection" of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll according to § 48 ZPO, i.e. that she "suddenly", because of the process fraud of 18.9.2007 to Az 2b o 271/01" her bias has admitted.
The excitement of the LG judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser) also turns out based on their secret applications at the Essen District Court; On 24.7.2008 / 7.8.2008 / 28.Sept.2008 / 29. Sept. 2008 they tried to pressure the judge Mr. Seelmann of regional court of the city-Essen and to appoint a supervisor with a reservation of consent for the plaintiff.
They failed again (like Mrs. Tannert); The secret applications of the conspirators were dismissed on March 24, 2009.
As the plaintiff discovered, the intriguing LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser, due in July / Sept. In 2008, secret applications to the district court of Essen, which had been rejected because of bias, was once again an LG committee (Mrs Tigges / Mrs Schmidt / Mrs Dr. Hoffmann) that had been illegally formed (on violation of § 75 GVG, of the EuGVVO Article 1, EGBGB Art. 7, Art. 101 GG) and remote controlled by Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll), to be silent about the current legal situation, or to circumvent the applicable law, in order to relieve the above mentioned rejected colleagues judges of the reproach of bias.
(14 LG decisions were issued by the above-mentioned girls (Mrs Tigges/Mrs Schmidt/Mrs Hoffmann) of the unlawful LG panel on 23. and 24. March 2009, all of which were appealed with a timely appeal)
Thereafter, (2009/2010), a coup club from the judges of the 11th Senate of the OLG (Higher Regional Court - Dusseldorf, Bünten / Mrs. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Mrs. Baan / Müller / Dahm / Mrs Grabensee) in order to handle the complaints against the resolutions of 23/24 March 2009 of the illegally formed LG committee; The coup club has issued more than 100 unlawful decisions in order to create a fait accompli against the plaintiff. 42 resolutions are on 16.2.2010, 18.2.2010, 22.2.2010, and a further 28 resolutions were issued on 30.3.2010 and on 31.3.2010 by three groups formed in violation of § 122 GVG and to the plaintiff with a period of appeal of 14 Days have been delivered.
That gave the occasion (Oct. 2010, March 2011) for criminal complaint by the public prosecutor's office against 13 LG / OLG-judges ( Enforcement procedure by the OLG Düsseldorf), petition by the parliament NRW with nearly 600 sheets documentation and further official liability claims against the EU and German law-compliant LG / OLG judges.
On Oct. 14, 2009, Mrs Twardon (as a cost official) also recalls an injunction to write Az 2b o 271/01, confirming that the plaintiff had paid € 22,200,- but the value in dispute was 2,747,843, 63 € (= 5,374,315.- DM). so far, the court fees would not be fully paid.
The process fraud of 18.9.2007 is therefore still current after two years (Oct. 2009).
How the OLG (Higher Regional Court) judges circumvent the laws in order not to convict the LG / OLG-judges colleagues, see decision of the 1st criminal senate OLG-Düsseldorf of 5 Apr. 2011 to Az
III-1 Ws 80/11 signed Stüttgen / Mrs Hubrach / Wissmann (the latter only AG judge !!), and in the committee there is no chairman judge !! (AG = magistrates court)
So, conditions at the OLG 1en Criminal Division as the LG-Düsseldorf 2b civil division.
But also in the BGH 2en Criminal Senate (Mr. Fischer /Mr. Berger /Mr. Krehl) the conditions in the year 2011 are not much better. See report on the lies of the representative of the General Federal lawyer Dr. ??? Berard of 2.5.2011 on the § 304 StPO and of the BGH 2en Criminal Senate.
to find in article the "red thread". in the category BGH. (shall be published after some days)
The offender of Law sitting at the 11th and 18th Senate of OLG-Düsseldorf have never permitted the appeal to the BGH. The law stipulates, (unfortunately), that the offender of law sitting on the OLG (Higher Regional Court) must grant / allow the legal complaint, but which offender goes voluntarily as a defendant in court ?, The BGH has kept silent about it. The legal gaps exist today (Aug. 2018)
The Federal supreme Court of Justice (=BGH), which intervened in 2010/2011, rejected the non-admission complaints (NZB) against the OLG decisions of February / March / May 2010 with three different arguments and the Constitutional Court (=BVerfG) has the gaps in the legislation regarding PKH (=legal aid for the process costs) as stated in the constitutional complaints Procedure not decided.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg / France did not consider the complaints submitted in 2010/2011 to be worthy of decision
On September 21, 2010, the plaintiff filed a new suit against Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll (and against Mrs Hoffmann) because Stockschlaeder-Nöll had organized and approved the fraud of Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle on 18.9.2007 .
The exclusion request is not decided upon termination of the procedure 2b o 271/01.
On March 16, 2011, a hearing date for Az 2b o 271/01 will take place, with the rejected judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Hoffmann) sitting in the decisive committee. The plaintiff personally present; but without advocate; A default judgment (= VU) is issued, which is challenged in due time by an RA with an objection. The LG judge Stockschlaeder-Nöll has forgotten to write in the VU (or she did not know !!) that the objection must be justified within a time limit and so the VU remains in abeyance for 1.5 years.
On July 12, 2012, followed a new statement of grounds for Az 2b o 271/01 and on July 18, 2012,
the LG Judge Mrs Brecht phoned to RA and tries to convince the new advocate to terminate the mandate, because the lawsuit has no chance of success and she was referring to the objection against the VU which was unfounded.
Similar experiments were successfully carried out by Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll to Az 2b o 268/01
and 4 lawyers (Borgelt / Goumagias / Klöpper / Weidemann) from the negotiating with friendly lies displaced / chased / kept away).
Mrs Brecht had to prove that she was clever enough to achieve the same result with plausible lies.
In response to the Advocate's (=RA) timely and substantiated feedback, the 2b Civil chamber had to issue a ruling and grant a one-month period to substantiate the opposition against the VU, and this has been respected by the RA.
On the other hand, the legal representative of the defendant country (RA Minnerop) receives a 6-month period (and a deadline extension due to the holidays at the end of the year) in order to comment on the new statement of grounds.
He shows his attitude to the law as well as in the year 2010 as well as on the 4. Sept. 2015 where
he made the THREATENING, i.e. Alla gangster-type to end the procedure 2b o 271/01.
The plaintiff filed a new PKH application based on the new statement of grounds of the RA of 12.7.2012 and applies for a minimum damage according to § 287 ZPO.
On 26.11.2012 the LG resolution is signed. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Jürging / Mrs. Brecht with
PKH refusal: Explanation: The claims for compensation would allegedly become time-barred on 31.12.2009; in addition, page 3 of the decision states that the claim for the estimation of a minimum damage is inadmissible; such an application does not know the whole ZPO.
How the date 31.12.2009 determined the 2b chamber has not betrayed. Later, the plaintiff calculated that the 2b Chamber the FG processes in the 4th Senate which lasted until 15 Dec. 2006, and the payments of the debtor (FA-Mettmann) of 2000, 2001, 2006, and the three-year limitation period had taken into account; Surprising was the initial statement that the claims would have been barred.
In this case, the 2b Chamber has overlooked or deliberately suppressed that the plaintiff had over- paid (by 1.182, €) all court fees for Az 2b o 271/01 since December 2006, and the 2b Chamber was obliged from law to deliver the claim to the Land NRW already in January 2007.
The next PKH application of 2 September 2013 for 2b o 271/01 was rejected on 28 May 2014 by a decision (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Brecht / Mrs Freitag) and the LG camarilla invented it after 13 years ( !!) dealing with the claim 2b o 271/01 and for the second time (!), that the claims for damages according to BGB new version (valid from 1.1.2002) are barred; after the immediate complaint has been lodged, Stockschlaeder-Nöll ordered with a non-remedy decision = (instructions for the blind), dated 7.7.2014 to the Higher Regional Court (= OLG, 18th Senate, Malsch), what the OLG decision should look like:
"The Chamber insists on the statute of limitations";
The plaintiff protested on August 28, 2015 against the processing blockade in front of the entrance
of the tribunal LG-Düsseldorf with two posters and on September 2, 2015 in front of the entrance of OLG-Düsseldorf with a poster against the blockers.
Two excited OLG judges photographed the poster and immediately called the police.
The latter after approval of the appointments and after consultation with the headquarters has said friendly good bye. She was not responsible to intervene; and the OLG judges were disappointed.
Now executed the OLG (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) in a decision of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 the LG-rejection with a (PKH-rejecting) monstrous legal entity and by Manipulation / changes / additions to the legal texts of the BGB old version (valid until 31.12.2001) the ordered result;
In doing so, the Receleur (French word = Fence) has recognized that the full payment of court fees in Dec. 2006 has interrupted the statute of limitations, therefore he determines that the claims would only become statute-barred on 31.7.2006. (see "OLG, Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf", "the last statements of law by Volker Malsch ..." or in district court Düsseldorf, May 9, 2016 of the legal representative against the alleged limitation period ... etc) i.e. with a mixture of BGB old version and BGB new version and many right-wingers;
The OLG decision was challenged by a hearing on 22 September 2015 in due time. The presiding judge Volker Malsch is "deported" to the pension about a week after the complaint (with not yet 63 years !, while others still have to work until 67 years).
The reader find the ORDER (= or non-remedy decision) of 7/7/2014 of Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co in page 2, the category: (LG =) District Court Düsseldorf.
Mrs Stein took over as the new chairwoman of the 18th Senate a bunch of complaints and the hard line of Predecessor (Mr. Malsch).
The hearings of 22 September 2015 against the OLG decision (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser / Anger) of 3.9.2015 by Mrs Stein / Mrs Glaeser / Anger (due to pressure from above, hurriedly, and with a lot of blah-blah and), without reference to the multitude of arguments for admitting the appeal, rejected on 5 Apr. 2016.
The ignoring and skipping of arguments belongs to the "art" of the LG / OLG judges (see OLG-Düsseldorf, ruling of 5.4.2016 Az 18 W 1/13, hearings 22.9.2015 rejected as unfounded).
The reason of the hasty and shameful OLG decision of 5.4.2016 (Mrs Stein & Co) was the upcoming hearing on April 13, 2016 at LG-Düsseldorf and there the files should be present.
On April 13, 2016, an oral hearing was held at LG-Düsseldorf on Az 2b o 271/01 (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Gundlach / Frank, (last only judge on probation), on 10 May 2016 the requested PKH is dismissed and on 11 May 2016 the action 2b o 271/01 with final judgment for alleged limitation of the claims (with reference to the OLG decision of 3.9.2015 and to the mixture of §§ of the BGB old version and §§ of the BGB (= Civil law) new version !!!) has been rejected.
The VU from 16.3.2011 is also maintained. At the hearing on April 13, 2016, Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll stated that, the claim from 12.7.2012 / 14.12.2012 / 23.8.2013 because of the (NGA =) useless expenses for patents and inventions and for the work in GR, because of the crimes of the FA-Mettmann, she had not served to the defendant country (NRW) because the plaintiff could not have paid the additional court fees.
The applicant's reply / question as to why the court failed to send an invoice for payment and that the applicant could have paid the court fees in instalments, as (until 2006) for the main proceedings, was not followed by Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll.
The real reason for not requesting payment of court fees for the extension of the claim could be only the true thought, i.e. the avoidance of the statute of limitations;
because the payment request on the part of the court (according BGH) interrupts the limitation period;
Stockschlaeder-Nöll (since 2001) wanted to avoid that, therefore she had in all the years (2001-2016) do not send a bill for the payment of court fees and Mrs Brückner-Hoffmann extorted to cancel the sentence on non-prescription of the claims from the minutes of the hearing on 12.11.2002
And then she gets annoyed because she is called an intriguer and asked to return the gown to the judiciary.
The LG Panel (under the, due to bias, Stockschlaeder-Nöll) has concluded with final judgment from 11. May 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 in full with the miscarriage of justice of OLG-Düsseldorf (18 Senate, Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) in the resolutions of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 and left the own ascertainment's of the 26.11.2012, and from 28.5.2014 (and 7.7.2014) regarding the limitation of claims under § 204 BGB new version fall totally.
But the previous unlawful LG decisions (despite the plaintiff's applications) not lifted !!, therefore requested the reopening of Procedure 2b o 271/01 by the advocate. Also on the part of the 2b civil chamber no decision: i.e. No connection under this number (like the answer on phone)
(About the contradictions in the LG and OLG decisions in the grounds of the alleged limitation of the claims of the official liability claim 2b o 271/01 times to BGB new version, sometimes with manipulated of the legal texts of the Civil Code old version committed by (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser / Anger), see article to be found in LG and OLG).
The fear of Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll to justify a decision or her fear of responsibility is obvious; She has not designed and written a single LG decision since 1.1.2002 until 11.5.2016; Only the default judgment (= VU) of 16.3.2011 dictated and thereby proved her ZPO-ignorance. Transfer all other decisions to the trainee or "inexperienced girls" for writing.
Of these she has wear out more than 16 (girls / interns), or made sick.
With the no remedy decision (= order = instructions for blind) from 30.5.2016 ordered Stockschlaeder-Nöll at the OLG Higher Regional Court (18th Senate Mrs. Stein & Co) the final version of the OLG decision on the appeal of 24.5.2016 against the rejection of 10.5.2016, the PKH applied for on April 6, 2016 for Az 2b o 271/01.
Decision on the immediate appeal, OLG-Az 18 W 25/16, (18 U 69/16) has been announced only on 30 Aug. 2017 and the PKH-rejecting results as ordered by LG, has been decided.
The procedure on Catholic Church is inverted; Everything the Pope proclaims must justify the cardinals and bishops; in the Düsseldorf justice, the OLG Düsseldorf must justify what the
low-ranking LG Düsseldorf ordered!
The process 2b o 271/01 is thus in May 2016 (after 15.5 years, after 31 LG / OLG judges tried to derail it with legal infractions, the plaintiff twice as partial (!?)incompetent disconnect, and the plaintiff one time (disguised as a car accident on 16.4.2008 to murder him), now provisionally terminated at the first instance;
The second instance with appeal of Aug. 18, 2016 OLG-Düsseldorf-Az 18 U 69/16 continues.
"Bad tongues claim that the early retirement of Mr Volker Malsch, a gift from the employer (i.e. from the defendant state of NRW=North-Rhine-Westphalia), for the last perversion of justice of Mr Malsch to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44 / 14 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), so that the defeat of the country NRW is postponed, or the chances of success of the official liability claim 2b o 271/01 be destroyed."
Similar corruption phenomena are also noticeable in the case of Mrs Freitag.
(see under LG-Düsseldorf, article about Mrs Freitag)
The plaintiff is waiting for a denial. But so far no came.
The "surprise" came on May 30th. 2016 by Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll
She recognized herself as being biased on the raised public liability lawsuit / PKH of 16.5.2016, LG-Az 2b o 76/16, because of the reported legal infraction / offense of 18.9.2007 to Az 2b o 271/01.
On the 30th of May. In 2016, she had made use of the self-refusal pursuant to § 48 ZPO, and therefore followed on June 16, 2016, the LG resolution on Az 2b o 76/16 was signed from Mrs Jungclaus / Mrs Harsta / Witte;
it has been found that Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is excluded from proceedings 2b o 76/16.
(see LG=district-court-Düsseldorf, Az 2b o 76/16, resolution of 16.6.2016).
The self-rejection is already published. (see under district court Düsseldorf, Az 2b o 76/16)
Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll had denied her bias for 15 years and all the applicant's exclusion requests with the help of inexperienced young women judges (i.e. Mrs. Schuster, Mrs. Brückner-Hoffmann, Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser, Mrs. Kaiser, Mrs. Hoffmann, Mrs Tigges, Mrs Brecht, Mrs Köstner-Plümpe, Mrs Schmidt, etc.) was rejected as unfounded.
The "new surprise" on the part of Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll in decision on 18th of July 2016 to Az
2b o 137/16 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs Gundlach / Wink is the following: she claims that she is not biased and rejects an exclusion request of 2 Aug. 2016 to before named Az 2b o 137/16 as inadmissible.
In addition, she rejects the requested PKH the alleged limitation of claims for pain and suffering claims; In order to achieve her inadmissible goal (alleged barred claims !!), she abuses §§ 199 (1), 823 BGB new version and suppresses the priority of applicability of § 839 (1) BGB new version and § 199 (2) BGB, according to the pattern of the right-wing infractions in the resolution of 3 Sept. 2015 to OLG Az 18 W 1/13, of the former Chairman of the 18. Senate OLG-Düsseldorf, Mr Volker Malsch. (§ 823 BGB regulates claims from unauthorized actions and is not in the cases of official breaches of civil servants prioritized.)
So she risk the fraud.
The reader finds the LG decision of 18.8.2016 and the prompt appeal against it with explanations to the § § 823, 839, 199 BGB, after clicking on the term "LG-district court Düsseldorf" and then the Az 2b o 137/16.
In addition, under "LG =District Court Dusseldorf" the reader find also the order (= no-remedy decision = guide for blind) from 31.8.2016 Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co, to OLG-11th Senate, and the comments of the plaintiff; the reader must see the OLG-decision from 20.10.2016 to Az 11 W 45/16 (LG 2b o 137/16), signed Thole/Mrs Engels / Böcker, the raised hearing and the new decision of 21 November 2016 about the hearing.
The peculiarity of OLG-Az 11 W 45/16 (LG Az 2b o 137 / 16) is that for the erroneous OLG decisions (based on GKG! = GerichtsKostenGesetz = Law of tribunal costs), with incorrect costs fixed in "PKH proceedings"; the costs of the appeal proceedings shall be abolished to the plaintiff (because the PKH regulations take precedence over GKG, and no cost decisions may be taken (even by judge rejection !!); but the OLG-Higher Regional Court judges of the 11th Senate (Mrs. Engels & Co) refuse to rectify or cancel them and remain silent about the legal errors committed.
The introduction of erroneous cost determination in "PKH Proceedings" had been made by the "OVERMAN" and outraged former chairman of the 11th Senate (Dr. Bünten), and his successors persistently cling to the arbitrary decision of the "superman".
The above written confirms a letter (note: "no OLG decision" !!) of the judge Mrs. Engels to the plaintiff, dated 8.12.2016 to Az 11 W 45/16 (LG-Az 2b o 137/16) with reference to the "counter-notification of the 3 Dec. 2016 ", in which she claims that the decisions of 20.10.2016 and 21.11.2016 (allegedly) are final and that the attacks against the costs are impossible.
In support of her claim, Mrs Engels refers to the paragraph § 99 ZPO, which is known to apply only
to litigation with RA compulsion, but for PKH applications (without RA compulsion), as the Az 2b o 137/16 does not apply. The above mentioned Letter from 8.12.2016 the judge Mrs Engels is published in the section "OLG-Düsseldorf" under the OLG-Az 11 W 45/16 (LG-Az 2b o 137/16).
Underneath appears the answer of the plaintiff to Mrs Engels, with repetition of the application for "annulment of the incorrect OLG decisions about costs on PKH-Preceedings".
The contradictions in the two OLG decisions of the 11th Senate from 20.10.2016 and from 21.11.2016 are enormous (as the reader can determine) and justify the charge that the OLG judges by "enforcement of the LG ordered "instructions for the blind" = no-remedy-decision", also deliberately incorrect (increased!) cost decisions in official liability proceedings, with costs offset the plaintiff for the legal violations of civil servants, on the one hand to increase the income of their employer (NRW) and on the other hand to justify their own salaries.
ΠΑΛΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ ΚΟΣΚΙΝΟ
The employer (NRW) does not disturb the unlawful cost decisions of the OLG judges of the 11th Senate, he is even pleased if the "convicted" pays the incorrect cost determination.
The citizen is also deprived of the right to complain (as with any commodity transaction) and the machinery of the judiciary is still well fed. Whether the raised BVerfG complaint will succeed, the reader is informed later about it. Meanwhile a small movement of the 11 senate is visible in the Aug. 2018; this will be reported soon.
For the main proceedings with OLG Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) now there was also a surprise, which also proves how loosely plundered by the plaintiff money in the coffers of the defendant NRW sits.
The RA Fassnacht, who was commissioned for about 24.5 T-€, gave a total of 8.5 lines of appeal on 25.11.2016, and there supported with the first 2 lines the judgments of the judges (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser / Anger) from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13.
The short and encrypted text of the appeal, means for the OLG judges of the 18th Senate, to silence the facts and to reject in general the allegations of the plaintiff, without going into details.
ΠΑΛΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ ΚΟΣΚΙΝΟ.
As far as the RA (= Advocate) fee is concerned, the RA receives approximately € 1,705 (€ / line) for each line.
(And if the OLG-NRW has to repeat the process 18 U 69/16 (according to BGH), then also the costs
of the RA of the plaintiff must bear, and / or all costs incurred at the first and second instance and the eigtenten court fees refund).
The reader will find under the heading "OLG-Düsseldorf, page 2, the published appeal reply of 8.5 lines of RA Fassnacht and including a short comment by the plaintiff.
On Dec. 27, 2016, the Higher Regional Court (18th Senate, Mrs. Stein) announced that the immediate appeal of 24 May 2016 against the LG decision of 10 May 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 (PKH-Rejection, LG-decision signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Frank), now together with the main case (18 U 69/16) so in September 2017 will be decided.
But the decision was came on 30 Aug. 2017.
The plaintiff sends more than 200 sheets / documents to OLG-Düsseldorf on Az 18 U 69/16 in Aug. 2017 and until mid-Sept. 2017 in 17 forwarding letters, which are taken from the file of the proceedings 2b o 271/01 (according View of the plaintiff) intentionally on the part of the judicial staff (LG / OLG judges) have been deliberately removed (also a lot of stealing).
Of these, only 14 of the applicant's submissions were confirmed by Mrs Stein in the judgment of 18/10/2017 on Az 18 U 69/17.
However, she (Mrs. Stein & Co) defends herself against the allegation of file manipulation and admits only the chaotic structure of records of 2b o 271/01. As the 200 leaves disappeared she has as excuse that the records (= GA) had been many times by Advocates !
In the LG process Az 2b o 76/16 (decision of 8 Nov. 2016 signed Mrs Jungclaus / Mrs Harsta / Wink) and in the immediate complaint of 30.11.2016), the reader discovers how the (only NRW?) Justice became a business of favours between authorities (General Attorney Düsseldorf) and (because of law-enforcement / offenses within the meaning of § 339 StGB), accused judges of the LG-district court Düsseldorf.
(To find under the category "LG-Düsseldorf", page 2, Az 2b o 76/16, decision 8.11.2016)
News with proof of the comedy because of the incorrect cost fixing to the OLG-Az 11 W 45/16
(LG- Az 2b o 137/16) is now available (on January 22, 2017) in the section OLG-Higher Regional
Court Düsseldorf, page 2, with title "The Comedy of the OLG-11th Senate .... etc) to read.
(Revision of the article will be done soon)
The change (?) Of the NO-REMEDY DECISIONS (reprimanded by the plaintiff as BLINDING INSTRUCTIONS), now the reader can admire after comparing the new no-remedy decision
issued on 5.1.2017 to LG Az 2b o 195/16, and some from the earlier years.
In almost all LG non-remedial decisions since 2002, is the signature of Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll striking.
More under the heading "Düsseldorf District Court" page 2, article entitled "the (un) voluntary (?) CONVERSION (?) of the offender Stockschlaeder-Nöll".
From here begins a description of the new development (from 1.1.2017) to the OLG Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01) concerning the "Bar of Justice" and " the Fourth Member of Gang in Toga" and former (2000-2001) confidant of Mrs Tannert, OLG Judge Mrs Fuhr.
The 3 pranks (= bad moves) of the driver of the judiciary, and the (in Jan. 2017) entry in the OLG-18. Senate to the OLG Az 18 U 69/16, LG Az 2b o 271/01) of the member (Mrs. Fuhr) of the "four gang in Toga" from the year 2000-2001 (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs Fuhr / Mrs Stöve / Mrs Wolks-Falter), and the retirement from the 18th Senate of the young OLG Judge Anger, announced as early as Nov. 2016 the first 2 lines out of a total of 8.5 lines appeal response of RA Fassnacht. The pattern of the pranks is the old acquaintance and that: the with prejudice application from 19 Aug. 2016 to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 because of the on 3 September 2015 to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 committed perversion of justice charged OLG judge Anger is at the end of the year 2016 from the OLG-18. Civil Senate removed.
"The Mohr has done his duty, the Mohr can go".
He is registered in the list of corrupt OLG judges. His job now gets the young OLG Judge Mrs Kirschner with the task, the right deflections of the also in the complot of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser / Anger) participating and rejected with a bias request Mrs Glaeser lids. She (Mrs Kirschner) is to be "familiarized" in the "art" of perversion of justice on the part of the OLG Judge (Mrs. Fuhr, former "confidant of Mrs Tannert" and co-signer of the "Proof of Conclusion of 28.11.2000" (signed Mrs Tannert / Mrs Fuhr / Schumacher), stamping the plaintiff as incapacitated only for the cases pending by LG-2b Civil chamber.
After the conspiracy of Mrs Tannert was discovered and indicated, and in her "official statement of May 18, 2000 (see LG), it was declared " the plaintiff partially (!) inoperable " (see official statement of Mrs Tannert) the responsibility for the legal violations acknowledged and admitted (the suggestion dated 4.7.2001 to the naive Mrs. Wolks-Falter the rejecting decision of 6.7.2001 (see LG-Düsseldorf, " The offenses of Mrs Tannert and Fr. Wolks-Falter ") because of § 47 ZPO, not in representation of the chairwoman, but directly as a"single judge "to change / sign, and the instruction to Mrs. Stöve to search at the University of Cologne and find paragraphs in the Greek ZPO / BGB In order to declare the plaintiff as partially incapacitated, as well as to reject with the other women "Wolks-Falter and Schmidts-Kötters" the motion of bias of April 20, 2001 against Mrs Tannert as unfounded), Mrs Tannert will soon be retired sent, and the "members of the gang of four" promoted.
In the year 2001/2002 Mrs Fuhr was the first to find a pleasant long-term parking lot at OLG-Düsseldorf;
Mrs Stöve is the second person to have returned to LG-Düsseldorf after a short Higher Education training in 2002 and has been promoted to chairwoman of a chamber.
Then also spokeswoman for the LG Düsseldorf become.
Mrs. Wolks-Falter, who signed a resolution against the plaintiff on 4 July 2001 as a "single judge" in the suggestion of Mrs Tannert and therefore called her a "fraudster" because she was not a single judge according to § 348 ZPO, did not receive her first later (2011) a pleasant parking lot at OLG Düsseldorf. In the meantime (2018) her name appears in the list of OLG-Düsseldorf Judges.
Mrs. Schmidt-Kötters has also been promoted to OLG-judge afterwards.
Mr Schumacher, the co-signer of the unlawful LG decision of 28.11.2000, was promoted to LG-chairman and later (14.6.2012, OLG-Az 11 W 81/10, LG-Az 2b o 170/08) called by Mrs Rotzheim of the 11th Senate (Fr. Rotzheim / RiLG Schumacher / Weishaupt) to formulate and reject the immediate complaint in above mentioned Procedures (2b o 170/08) concerning his statement of law of 28.11.2000, now as a member of the OLG-decisive Higher Regional Court.
So, all LG / OLG judges and offenders, involved in the complots against the plaintiff (engineer + inventor) have been promoted by the Dusseldorf Ministry of Justice (driver of the judiciary);
and the honest and the lawful judge are still waiting for the promotion!
(Female judges, who have been excluded from criminal law and excluded by law (eg Mrs Fuhr, Mrs. Glaeser, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Mrs. Strupp-Müller, Mrs. Wolks-Falter, etc.) could "RIGHT" speak on 12 January 2017 ??
the unlawful OLG-Higher Regional Court (Mrs Stein / Mrs Fuhr / Mrs Kirschner), they exceeded the competencies and overhaul of the OLG-11 Senate according to the GVP (=Business allocation plan), "decided" on the motion for bias of 19 Aug. 2016 against Mrs Glaeser because of the legal inflection of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01) and rejected the exclusion request as unfounded.
The above OLG Panel claims to be formed on 12.1.2017 in conformity with the law, but the plaintiff remains in his conviction that the published GVP (= business allocation plan) is not in need of interpretation, in this regard, the OLG committee was formed unlawfully.
The BGH avoided a response on May 24, 2018 and remained silent about it.
ΠΑΛΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ ΚΟΣΚΙΝΟ (i.e. spring the difficult question to handle or ignore these questions)
So Mrs Glaeser has not committed any deliberate or intentional infringements of the law, claims the OLG Panel. (See OLG-Düsseldorf, 18 U 69/16; 12.1.2017 signed Mrs Stein / Mrs Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner
The announcement (in the first 2 lines) of the RA Fassnacht on 25.11.2016, that the defendant country the legal diffraction of 3.9.2015 the OLG Judge Malsch / Fr. Glaeser / Anger "supports"
(see appeal reply of 25.11.2016) repeats the OLG committee on 12.1.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 in other words, and tried with flat-rate text modules from the dumpster of the OLG-Higher Regional Court to declare the right-wing inflection of the accused Mrs. Glaeser as legal views.
Thus, it is confirmed that the NRW Land has prescribed the RA Fassnacht, the form and content
of the appeal reply in the encrypted manner, as well as the OLG-Panel (Mrs Stein / Mrs Fuhr / Mrs Kirschner) the content of the decision of 12.1.2017 dictated; it is sad but true: all involved judges have stooped. (See also article on the "Bückling" = FRG JUSTICE)
On the bad moves of the driver of the judiciary (Appeal Reply 25.11.2016 the RA Fassnacht dictate,
to deduct the charged because of law violations H. Anger from the 18th Senate, and in support of the Mrs Stein has been using the criminally biased OLG Judge Mrs Fuhr with a scribbler (Mrs. Kirschner) since 1.1.2017), the plaintiff responded to the OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 with the written statement of 1.2.2017. (click: OLG-Düsseldorf, page 2, and search for articles entitled "Immediate Complaint of 1.2.2017 against OLG-Resolution etc", see also official statement of Mrs Fuhr of 11.4.2017)
------ -------------------------------------------------- -----------------
Interesting for all readers (especially non-lawyers) to learn how the offenders in OLG Judge Toga of the 11th Senate (Thole / Fr. Engels / Böcker), with reference to RNr. 53 to § 127, ZPO, Zöller, Aufl. 2016, tries to justify the illegal cost determination in PKH proceedings (LG-Az 2b o 195/16) within OLG-Düsseldorf Az 11 W 8/17. With the illegal OLG-Cost fixing to OLG Az 11 W 8/17, concerning the PKH procedure LG Az 2b o 195/16, the OLG judges (Thole / Mrs Engels / Böcker) try to cover the offenses of the LG-judge Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll, described in the application for bias to LG-Az 2b o 195/16, and to punish the plaintiff with a wrong decision on costs.
In order to reach their goal, the court treasury Düsseldorf (Mrs Enseleit) and the paying agent for justice in HAMM also rushed against the plaintiff.
The legal dispute of the plaintiff with the OLG Düsseldorf, 11-senate, over costs in PKH procedures and complaints after rejection of bias motions, lasts for 17 years.
Dozens of threats of execution had to be rejected by the plaintiff with legal arguments.
Only recently (report will follow shortly) Mrs Engels recalled the OLG decision Az 11 W 16/14 with the erroneous decision on costs to threaten the plaintiff with the execution in July 2017 by the OGV Nauroschat. Result at AG / LG-Essen still open; it will be reported later.
The plaintiff shows as "responsible" for the growing useless work of the administration of justice (according to the Parkinson law) the named LG / OLG-Düsseldorf Judges and the " driver of the judiciary of NRW".
The reader find after clicking "LG-district court Düsseldorf, page 2, LG-Az 2b o 195/16 the offenses
of Stockschlaeder-Nöll, summarily described.
So, the OLG judges form a protective cover around the LG offender and both judges groups undermine the law and the public's trust in the judiciary.
It is already the fourth different and deliberately wrong interpretation of the laws by the OLG body of the 11th Senate to cover the blatant violation of law and to deceive the plaintiff.
And then they wonder why the people have so little faith in the judiciary.
(Click More, OLG-Az 11 W 8/17 and LG 2b o 195/16)
The NRW Ministry of Justice has been silent for years about any infringement of LG / OLG judges and allows the costs of justice administration to grow or explode. Whether the new Ministry of Justice (since July 2017) will respond to the recommendation of the plaintiff, i.e. to protect the RIGHT from the inside undermining " will be revealed.
After each reform of the judiciary, the rights of citizens will be cut and the judicial staff will be increased instead of removing the perpetrators of the consequences of the Parkinson Act from service. The people unfortunately have no LOBBY. The deadlines for lodging an appeal are reduced to 2 weeks and the old 30-year limitation period to three (3) !! Shortened years. In most European countries the grace period is 5 years.
The Notification (self-rejection) of 30 May 2016 confirming that (Stockschlaeser-Nöll) has no prejudice to Az 2b o 271/01, but she reject the PKH application of 3 June 2017 for the expenditures that have become useless on 12.9.2017. Justification: The claims are allegedly time-barred. The LG decision 12.9.2017
and the immediate complaint with further evidence against it appears under "LG-Az 2b o 271/01, useless-expenditures (= NGA), page 3. Click on OLG-18 U 69 / 16 "IMPRESSIONS etc" to learn more about the 27.09.2017 held oral hearing
The reader knows the saying:
"If in the morning stinks of crap, will not smell like roses at noon"
The crap smell from the Düsseldorf justice has obviously the nose of the new Minister of justice
(until 2017) not arrived. The waste of taxpayers' money according to the Parkinsons Act goes on.
Now the plaintiff's PKH application of 8.10.2017 (with a supplement of 10.10.2017) has been signed by decision of 13.10.2017, Mrs Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner, with only 1 line, i.e. rejected because of lack of prospect of success; the above-mentioned PKH application to the pleading of the RA of 22.9.2017 and the OLG judgment to Az 18 U 69/16 (rejection of the appeal) of 18.10.2017 signed Mrs Stein / Mrs Glaeser / Mrs Kirschner, referring to the appeal of 18.8.2016 (because of alleged limitation of the claims), has been rejected. The revision is not allowed.
On 4 Nov. 2017, a hearing was followed and the reader learns what tricks the OLG judges to Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) apply to undermine the RIGHT.
The OLG judgment of 18 Oct. 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16, with comments on the tricks and on the legal violations of the OLG judges, will be soon published (Translation on preparation)
For the readers who want to know: The Not allowable admission of ground of appeal (= NZB) against
the OLG-Düsseldorf judgment of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) is indeed on 18 March 2018 submitted to the BGH in good time, but the opposing party did not comment it.
In the meantime (Febr. 2019) the Federal Supreme Court (= BGH) announced a decision on 24 May 2018 "without reason" about the NZB and about the hearings on 26. July 2018 not accepted and commented, that the BGH took everything into consideration and did not violate the hearing right of claimant.
The documents are now published and commented (on English) to. Look in rubric BGH.
The timely constitutional complaint of 22.6.2018 against the BGH decision of 24.5.2018/26.7.2018 it is also appeared in the rubric BGH / BVerfG.
The PKH application from 8.10.2017 (with the addition of 10.10.2017) and the OLG-decision from 13.10.2017 (PKH-refusal) to OLG Az 18 U 69/16, the reader can found by clicking on OLG-Düsseldorf, Titel : Az 18 U 69/16 Resolution 13.10.2017 (PKH refusal) signed Mrs Stein / Mrs Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner.
A new sequel (4.11.2017) with evidence about file manipulation to LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 there is under "LG-District Court Dusseldorf" to find / read, and concerns the disappearance of the court documents of the "LOADINGS from 2 Aug. 2002 at an oral hearing on 1.10.2002 ", the replacement sheets being dated back.
On (May 2, 2018) I registered with a new series of blockades at the LG-Düsseldorf (2b Civil chamber) and OLG-Düsseldorf 18th Civil Senate in the period 2011-2018 and concerns Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs Brecht LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 258/14), Mr. Volker Malsch (former Chairman 18th Civil Senate) and Mrs. Baan (active since Sept. 2009 at the 11th OLG Senate and from about May 2012 to about Apr. 2015 at the OLG-18th Civil Senate) as well as the "overmen" of the OLG-11. Senate (Dr. Bünten, Mrs. Jungclaus, H. Wermeckes, Mrs. Baan, Müller).
The recent long history of LG Az 2b o 258/14 and OLG 18 W 7/15 (written in 34 pages, and then the variety of documents may tire some readers (because the named LG / OLG proceedings since Dec. 2014, Selective reading is recommended, but processing / documents (such as: PKH applications, LG / OLG resolutions, complaints etc.) are under OLG-Az 18 W 7 / 15 (LG 2b o 258/14), and OLG-Az 18 W 73/15 (LG-Az 2b o 87/15) and OLG-18 W 5/17 LG Az 2b o 195/16), to be read and are published peu a peu (= every now and then).
The case of idling at the OLG-Düsseldorf 11th Senate (Engels & Co) or the efforts of Mrs Engels to make a free PKH application as a costly procedure is still in full development at the district court (AG / LG) of the city Essen and reached there a peak.
An army of half-employed / semi-disabled people try to hide idle at their office.
After completion of the procedure, the publication of the documents follows.
A new wind from OLG-Düsseldorf 18th Senate, show the new resolutions of 19.4.2018, can also be found under OLG-Dusseldorf, Az 18 W 7/15 or OLG Az 18 W 73/15, page 3. The OLG-Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf 18th Senate is obviously anxious to have the age-old and preceded by the previous cases from the table away
The description of the offenses (according to StGB) of OLG Judge Mrs FUHR, the reader will find in the new article titled "Comments on the official statement of Mrs Fuhr dated Apr. 11, 2017) after clicking" OLG-Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf ", page 3 ,
How it was possible to achieve the blockade of lawsuits 2b o 271/01 from almost 4 full years (Dec. 2006 to end of Sept. 2010), despite the payment 22.200, - €, although the full court fees paid (even with overpayment 1.182, - € !!), the reader learns in the new article by clicking "LG-District Court Dusseldorf with title:
"PAYMENT SUBSCRIPTION to Az 2b o 271/01? YES, NO, JAIN, NO, YES"
The reader learns also, how the court records (= GA) of the LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 on the part of the incriminated LG judges manipulated (= "haircut"), and how legal alibis on the part of the OLG judges (18th Senate and 11. Senate) in order to protect the LG judges from liability, the evidence (here published copies) of some of the documents in the plaintiff's archive concerning the 17 years blocked Az 2b o 271/01,
Many of the documents published here are therefore in the GA (as of May 2017)
The documents missing from the court records (GA) and incriminating the LG judges, i.e. The fact that some documents were deliberately removed from the GA had already been established and criticized in the years 2003-2012.
The series of publications concerning evidence of GA tampering is continued in the rubric "LG-Landgericht Düsseldorf" under the term "manipulation of court documents to Az 2b o 271/01". Please look there. So far, 16 resendments, as well as a convolute / stapler with 7 sheets, on 27.9.2017 at the hearing, to the chairwoman Mrs Stein, have been handed over by the RA (i.e. a total of 17 consignments).
On 3 June 2017, the claimant files a new PKH application on LG Az 2b o 271/01, requesting legal aid for the Uptake Expenses (= NGA) and excluding all LG / OLG judges charged with infringing the right i.e. Criminal offenses within the meaning of Section §339 of the Criminal Code were charged or prosecuted.
Which legal texts manipulations and thus deliberate process fraud the LG / OLG judge are accused, the reader learns in the new application, after clicking LG-Düsseldorf, "PKH application of 3. June 2017 for NGA". So far (Dez.2018) no reaction (not even by the Attorney General!).
Ironically, the rejected judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs Gundlach, which with Self-rejection
have their bias admitted are sitting again in the committee.
The Decisions of BGH of the 24.5.2018/25.7.2018 and comments and the Decision of Constitutional of Sept. 2018 are also published under BGH.
The European Court of Human Rights is also invoked.
(The report will continue and complete)
To learn more, click the appropriate search terms to (below or next door) or the national flag shown for German / Greek / Italian / English/French
More Articles are translated, look there!
Advice for the Visitors of Website:
E-mail messages or requests, write please only in one of the above shown 5 european languages. Only these shall be processed and answered.
(Note: Asiatic Languages or East-Europe languages cannot be translated)
DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501
PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 IS SUITABLE
AS OPERATING MODEL-DEVICE FOR SHOWS IN MUSEUMS