Dr.-Ing. Th. SARTOROS

WHO IS THE "GODFATHER" OF THE CRIMINALS ??

 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL-DÜSSELDORF

              LETS THE PROCESS FRAUD / CRIMINALS

 

1. Ms. M. STEIN (CHAIRWOMAN of the 18th CIVIL SENATE)

2. Ms. FUHR (NOW IN THE 7th CIVIL SENATE)

3. Ms. GLAESER (DEPUTY of CHAIRWOMAN

               of the 18th CIVIL SENATE)

4. Ms. KIRSCHNER (NOW IN THE 17th CIVIL SENATE)

5. Ms. BARBIAN (AT THE 18th CIVIL SENATE)

6. Ms. SKIBBE (NOW ?? OLG Düsseldorf?)

7. Ms. ANDEREGG (NOW IN THE 17th CIVIL SENATE)

        

                       AND OTHER CRIMINALS

    IN JUDGES-GOWN OF COURT OF APPEAL-DÜSSELDORF

    IN THEIR FUNCTION ACT, AS IF THEY DO NOT

    WOULD HAVE COMMITTED LEGAL FRAUD.

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

  THE PUBLIC PROSECUTIVE OFFICE DOES NOT BRINGS  

           A PUBLIC CHARGE AGAINST JUDGE.

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

THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL FINDES IT O.K.

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

THE NRW JUSTICE MINISTER DIRECTS / APPROVES

                       AND IS SILENT.

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

               THE VICTIM OF LEGAL FRAUD

OF THE JUDGES OF COURT OF APPEAL (OF DÜSSELDORF)

        MUST BE THE (JUDICIAL AND ADVOCATES)

                        BEAR COST.

 

                          MORE IN:

 

          WWW.SARTOROS-DR-ING.DE

The reader of the attached article will not be surprised at the content;

he has so many jokes to tell about authority. So another one.

 

As if nothing had happened, the OLG-D'dorf President refuses, or the person handling

his correspondence wholeheartedly rejects the removal from the OLG-D'dorf, the female judges

of Court of Appeal which has been accused of fraudsters since Sept. 19, 2019, of the 18th

Civil Senate, Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr/Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner, even publicly dubbed

"female criminals".

 

The above-mentioned criminals have remained in their places and are allowed to do so

themselves decide on the plaintiff's pending complaints in 2021.

 

The head of the judiciary is obviously not yet convinced that a "purge"

(from the offenders) of the judicial staff is necessary.

 

He chooses the people to be promoted, or he appoints certain people as chairmen

Provide willing persons to carry out his recommendations or verbal instructions,

but he is reluctant to revise some of his decisions.

 

The damage to the judiciary is therefore greater; The distrust of the population in the judicial

authorities becomes more obvious with new jokes.

 

In addition, the costs that burden the taxpayer are always addressed.

Not just the refusal to remove the criminals in OLG judges' gowns

but also the effort that is made is not understandable for the taxpayer.

 

For a normal letter written in an official sheet, there are very often (3) names

plus the hidden name of the OLG president (who does not appear anywhere).

 

Could it get any easier?

                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                 Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                                 Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                                45219 Essen

                                                                                                                                                 February 08, 2021

                                                                                                                        

In advance by fax: 0211-4971-548

President of the Court of Appeal Düsseldorf

(personally)

Cecilienallee 3

40474 Düsseldorf

 

Re: Reminder to President of Court of Appeal-Düsseldorf to sign himself the letters to the plaintiff.

 

Mister President of the Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf,

 

Your correspondence person is already exercising the authority of an OLG president.

 

The "I" form used by him in his last letter dated January 18, 2021 is

not only conspicuous, but also pejorative for you.

 

In addition, the spontaneous question arises: "Who is actually the OLG-D'dorf President?".

 

As a lawyer from the administration of justice, it should actually be clear to you, that the letters

to the plaintiff have to sign, and the place in the right column for the person handling the correspondence

of the sheet under "Editor" is suitable.

 

After all, it is about procedural fraud by female judges, including those of the 18th Civil Senate

(Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) who are publicly classified as CRIMINALS

titled and indicated.

 

To keep the criminals in their place as if nothing had happened, in spite of the

a lot of evidence, also means a serious ethical / judicial / legal liability a burden

on you that is not circumvented with tricks. Are you aware of the facts?

 

Remove the women from OLG-Düsseldorf before it is too late and sign the letters yourself.

 

With best regards

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

From this article the reader learns that approx. 19 OLG judges (with their names) are accused

of criminal offenses, procedural fraud and perversion of rights according to § 339 StGB, in the case

of the Greek engineer and inventor.

He may wonder, how none of the accused judges for his trial fraud is condemned.

What does the prosecutor do?

The statement of the author here is: that "the German judiciary is not independent"

Who president of a higher regional court, or president of a regional court, or the

Public Prosecutor's Office, or the Attorney General's Office, is determined by the Minister of Justice

of the individual country. In this respect, the persons are also who as the chairman of a civil chamber

of the regional court, or as chairman of a senate of the higher regional appeal court, or as

Office manager is promoted, is a decision of the director of the judiciary staff.

This is because a HITLER law from 1935 still applies in Germany today.

(Judicial Constitutional Ordinance (= GVVO) named, from Nazi rule)

Yes, the reader got it right;

the "FÜHRER" empowered all FRG democratic governments to direct the judiciary since 1935.

More in another publication.                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                                  Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                                 45 219 Essen

                                                                                                                                                  March 3, 2021

In advance by fax: 0211-87565-1260 (without receipts)

District Court of Düsseldorf

2b civil chamber

Werdener Str. 1

40327 Düsseldorf

              

Re: Az new; (PKH from March 3, 2021 for official liability suit (= AHK) against NRW, represented by

                       of the Minister of Justice, represented by the Public Prosecutor General Düsseldorf,

                         because of Perversion of the law / fraudulent proceedings of the OLG-D'dorf judge of

                         the 18th civil senate Ms. STEIN,in the judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16

                         (LG-Düsseldorf (=D'dorf) Az 2b o 271/01).

                       The Court of Appeal D´dorf (=OLG) ruling on October 18, 2017 is based on legal fraud

                         (alleged statute of limitations on "6/30/2000", the reported claims for damages, based

                       on the crimes of tax-offfice (=FA)-Mettmann in 1979-2006 against the Greek engineer

                       and inventor).

                       The judgment due to the fraudulent proceedings cannot become final;

                       it will canceled; The fraudster and criminal Mrs. STEIN must from OLG-D'dorf

                        away; The statute of limitations has not occurred; There is a legitimate interest

                       Ms. STEIN is responsible for the decisions made in 2017 (with the help of

                       known criminals who were excluded by law according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO

 

A.

             The judges are subject to the law (Art. 97 GG) and there is then a breach of the law,

             if a decision cannot be justified based on legal rules.

 

Facts in brief

 

The present PKH/lawsuit deals only with the planned and executed fraudulent proceedings relating to Az

18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) in 2017 by the chairwoman of the 18th civil senate, Ms. STEIN, and with the harmful

consequences (financial, economic, sanitary) of perversions.

 

The frauds of the OLG judges Ms. STEIN (temporary help: Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner)

in the appeal proceedings with OLG-D'dorf Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271 / 01), are here

treated briefly because are considered proven; Conspiracy of the OLG judges undisputed !! in this respect,

Ms. STEIN is only treated as a consequence of the previous decisions; Here a new determination of the

damage is proposed and claims for damages are made.

 

The other resolutions of the fraudsters (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in the years

2018/2019/2020 and 2021 and their consequences will be dealt with in new lawsuits / PKH.

 

In the, from the accused OLG judges (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner, responsible for the trial fraud

of October 18, 2017 in the judgment on Az 18 U 69/16), Ms. Glaeser, was already in the trial fraud on Az

18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) of September 3, 2015 with Mr. Malsch and Mr. Anger involved. (see lawsuit /

PKH from Feb. 17, 2021, no proceedings-Nr (=Az) communicated here yet!)

 

So Ms. STEIN absolutely wanted (and she proved this with the decision of January 12, 2017) to have

Ms. Glaeser on the decision-making body; Reason: the knowledge of the files and the experience (Ms. Glaeser)

on litigation fraud on September 3, 2015 so that her knowledge about perversion of the law in the new litigation

fraud to Az 18 U 69/16 flows into (NB: the "limitation period" for the claims to Az 2b o 271/01 ordered by

LG-D´dorf, Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Fr. Brecht on July 7th, 2014 was in OLG decision 3.9.15 by means

of manipulation / addition / amendment of Legal texts of the BGB old version supposedly occurred

on "July 31, 2006" !!).

 

An exclusion request from August 19, 2016 against Ms. Glaeser because of his fraud in the case of Az

18 W 1/13 from September 3, 2015, etc., decided on January 12, 2017, failed due to the resistance of the

chairwoman Ms. STEIN although the act of § 41 No. 6 ZPO excluded Mrs. Fuhr (the old confidante, of the

former chairwoman of the 2b civil chamber, Mrs. Tannert)

 

The OLG decision of January 12, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Fr. STEIN / Fr. Fuhr / Kirschner (discharge

Ms. Glaeser from the accusation of partiality, but not from the accusation according to § 339 StGB (=German

Penal Code) of fraud) was conspicuously illegal (because of Ms. Fuhr's involvement). Ms. STEIN not only

kept silent about this but also defended the offender (Ms. Glaeser).

 

Oral hearing on Az 18 U 69/16 took place on Sept. 27, 2017, with the decisive body Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser /

Ms. Kirschner, the plaintiff personally with attorney D.Z., and attorney Fassnacht, representative of NRW.

So again the well-known criminal (Ms. Glaeser) sat next to Ms. STEIN on the decisive OLG committee.

Reference is made to the OLG judgment 18.10.17 with 29 pages

 

In the months of Aug / Sept. In 2017, the plaintiff sent, or personally handed over to the OLG to Az 18 U 69/16,

a total of 17 mailings with more than 200 sheets of "curled up" from court files 2b o 271/01; The plaintiff

accused the LG judges (including Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Ms. Strupp-Müller, Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser,

Ms. Hoffmann, Ms. Brecht) and OLG judges including Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger, Bünten & Co,

were interested in tweaking / manipulating the GA from incriminating documents.

 

The legal fraud committed in the judgment of October 18, 2017 by the OLG committee Ms. STEIN /

Ms. Glaeser /Ms. Kirschner are uncovered and reported to the monopolists (D'dorf public prosecutor's

office) with a criminal complaint (and a large amount of evidence) on September 19, 2019, but a result

(via the criminal complaint) has not yet been announced. The General Prosecutor- D'dorf has been informed

about the protract/abduction.

 

1. First concept of the conspirators Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner, the damage

   to declare compensation claims of the engineer + inventor to Az 2b o 271/01 as statute-barred on

   06/30/2000

 

After the application of partiality against Ms. Glaeser (decision of January 12, 2017 signed Ms. STEIN /

Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Kirschner) and the exclusion request against Ms. Fuhr (decision of July 19, 2017 signed.

Ms. STEIN / Unger / Ms. Kirschner) failed due to the resistance of Ms. Stein, now the conspirators (Ms. STEIN /

Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) on August 30, 2017 also refused the financial aid (= PKH) for the appeal of August 18,

2016 to Az 18 U 69 / 16; (see lawsuit / PKH of February 8th, 2021 due to infractions by Ms. Fuhr;

Az not known here).

The comparison of the OLG decision issued on August 30, 2017 and rejecting the PKH, with the content and

wording of the judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 reveals the involvement and breadth of the

individual conspirators (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in the individual chapters.

 

Ms. Fuhr, who is excluded by law (§ 41 No. 6 ZPO), determined the wording of the rejection of the PKH

application for appeal in the OLG decision on August 30, 2017, which was later also verbatim in the OLG

judgment of October 18 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 were taken over. (See below: Comparison of the OLG

decision of August 30, 2017, page 5-7, with OLG judgment of October 18, 2017, page 23 ff, version

with 29 pages; in it the reader will find the sentence served with the 6th Months extension of the legal force

of § 209 BGB old version which was "made in favour of the plaintiff" !!).

The fraud committed by the criminal trio was therefore clear

.

Ms. Glaeser delivered, among other things, the parachute for the manipulation / addition / amendment of the

legal text, e.g. § 209 BGB old version with the alleged extension of the legal effect by 6 months after delivery

of the FG judgment, which she also referred to Az 18 W 1 / 13 had signed in resolution 3.9.15, and a lot more.

 

Ms. STEIN created the heavy clouds of smoke for the case law of the Constitutional Court (= BVerfG), to distract

the plaintiff from the fraud, and served (enthusiastically) several times the fraud as

"in favour of the plaintiff", and a lot more.

 

What has been written above also shows that Ms. STEIN only had one thing in mind with the other like-minded

female criminals; That the process fraud is inconspicuous and offers the least possible or no target for later

revisions. Ms. STEIN worked just as criminally against the plaintiff in 2021 (more in the new lawsuits!)

 

The activity of Ms. STEIN with the criminals Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner was "CRIMINAL"

from the start when the judgment was drawn up on October 18, 2017 for Az 18 U 69/16.

The new claims for damages are therefore justified.

 

The head of the judiciary had ensured that Ms. STEIN (Sept. 2015) and then Ms. Fuhr (early 2017) took the place

in the 18th Civil Senate. (Ms. Glaeser had already got on board in March 2015 and, despite the fraudulent

proceedings on September 3, 2015, at Az 18 W 1/13, stayed with the 18th Civil Senate in order to bring her

experience of fraud against the plaintiff). Ms. Kirschner came from the Chamber of Representatives and was

responsible for the theoretical / theatrical relief of the other women (Glaeser / Fuhr) from the allegations of bias.

 

The criminal quartet with Ms. STEIN as chairperson (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner)

did not take care of the plaintiff's legal arguments, contained in the appeal; The proven importance of the facts /

events on the statute of limitations has been suppressed / deleted from the facts of the judgment of October 18,

2017. It was Ms. Stein's job to downgrade and delete everything that was presented as insignificant (insofar as

the applications were permissible!).

 

The following section "C" proves how the formulations of Ms. Fuhr in resolution 30.8.17, after consultation

with Ms. Stein, were adopted in the judgment of 18 October 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16;

The evidence justifies the new claims for damages.

 

"The plaintiff was already informed of the alleged inadmissibility of the applications in the PKH decision

of the Senate of August 30, 2017". (Text from OLG judgment October 18, 2017, on Az 18 U 69/16, page 17, point 3)

 

1. Comparison of some excerpts from the OLG decision. August 30, 2017 Ms. Stein/Ms. Fuhr/Ms. Glaeser
2. (= S / F / G) and of the OLG-D'dorf judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16
3. Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner (= S / G / K)

 

C1. On page 6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2, of the above resolution August 30, 2017, the committee (STEIN /

         Fuhr / Glaeser) explains the validity and applicability of the BGB (old version) (§ 211), that "after

           legally binding conclusion of the proceedings at the FG, the 3-year limitation period began to

           run again ".

         The reader will find the same sentence identical in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az

         18 U 69/16 (Page 22, line 17 ff, judgment version 29 pages) of the committee ( STEIN /Glaeser /    

         Kirschner)

      

           The committee (S / F / G) commits the multiple process fraud in the last 3.5 lines of the 2nd

           Paragraph in conjunction with lines 1-2 of the 2nd paragraph; There (decision 30.8.17, page 6,

           last Lines, paragraph 2) is the following

    

         "In favour of the plaintiff, the Senate has already made earlier resolutions for this period

           until the legal force of six months, so that the legal action before the interruption of the statute

           of limitations triggered by the tax court ended on June 30, 2000 at the latest "

 

         The reader finds the above sentence identical in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18

         U 69/16 (Page 22, line 25 ff, judgment version 29 pages).

                    

             From the above lines it can be seen that (underlinings are made by the plaintiff);

1. a) the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the FG proceedings, and
2. b) according to lines 1-2 of paragraph 2, the 3-year limitation period has started again.
3. c) The 18th Senate also committed the fraud proven below in "earlier resolutions"
4. d) which they belittle as in favor of the plaintiff
5. e) the legal force (of the interruption of the limitation period) six (6) months after delivery of the

           FG ruling lasts.

 

   Under the above "point c" ("in previous decisions") is the fraud of Ms. Glaeser to Az 18 W1/13

   (and 18 W 44/14) signed on September 3rd, 2015 Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger meant, the next

   Lines (also in the lawsuit / PKH of February 17, 2017 also against Ms. Glaeser) is analyzed /

   commented on

 

   The play on words with the terms "limitation", "limitation fixed period", "limitation interruption"

   the offender (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) about the mix-up and then the wrong one To

   achieve the result of the alleged "limitation of claims" is also in the judgment of 18.10.2017 identical

   to Az 18 U 69/16 (page 22). The criminals were already in Aug. 2017 for the lawsuit fraud agreed.

                                

     So it should be noted briefly that

 

"The FG proceedings have interrupted the statute of limitations (primary legal protection) and this

   Interruption of the statute of limitations because of the FG proceedings (i.e. because of the primary

   legal protection) ended one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last ?!) FG

   judgment".

 

   Well, based on the data of the OLG decision 30.8.2017 in page 6, paragraph 2, the (allegedly !!), the    

   last FG judgment was issued on November 24, 1999 (which was also included in the OLG judgment

   of 18.10.2017!!), it follows that:

 

   Assuming that the FG judgment was served at the beginning of January 2000, took (due to the

   primary legal protection) the triggered interruption of the primary statute of limitations until the

   beginning February 2000 (statutory period of one month for a dispute at the BFH !!).

 

   Thereafter, i.e. from the beginning of February 2000, the statutory 3-year limitation period applies

   (according to BGB) started to run for the filing of the official liability suit

   (as confirmed by OLG decision 30.8.17, page 6, in line 1, paragraph 2, and judgment 18.10.17,

   page 22)

 

     The end of this statutory limitation period according to the BGB would be 3 years later, i.e.

     joined in February 2003.

 

   Ms. STEIN has the legal infractions with the OLG committees (STEIN / Fuhr / Glaeser, decision

   30.8.17) as well as (STEIN / Glaeser / Kirschner, judgment 18.10.2017) and the above-mentioned

   criminal OLG committees claim that the interruption of the (BGB) "statute of limitations" ended on

"6/30/2000" without being specify that the interruption of the statute of limitations ended due to

   primary legal protection and then the 3 year limitation period has started to run.

    

   The offense is thus completed and the offense is also revealed in page 6, paragraph 3, in point a),

(Decision 30.8.17) where it writes that the limitation period of 3 years according to BGB old version

• § 211 on "Occurred 6/30/2000 at the latest on 7/31/2006".

  

   The reader finds the above sentence identical in the OLG judgment of the (S / G / K) October 18,

   2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Page 22, last lines, and page 23 first 2 lines, version 29 pages)

 

   That, neither on "6/30/2000" nor on "7/31/2006" did the 3-year (BGB) statute of limitations (the

   one in Febr. 2000 started to run) ended on 6/30/2000, is only the result of the planned / executed

   Fraud of Ms. STEIN with like-minded criminal women.

   This justifies the present lawsuit / PKH and the claims for damages

 

 The criminal committees in OLG judges' gowns (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) and Ms. STEIN /

   Ms.Glaeser / Fri. Kirschner) have deliberately avoided writing that the 3-year statute of limitations

   period according to the German Civil Code (= BGB) began to run in February 2000.

 

The reader will find the same suppressions in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (S / G / K).

 

     By suppressing and using the word "limitation period interruption" (from the primary legal

   protection !!) the committees misled the reader and thus the wrong result reached i.e. that the

     3-year (BGB) limitation period on 30.6.2000 or at the latest (!?) on July 31, 2006 would have

     expired. The addition (July 31, 2006) comes from Ms. Glaeser.

 

   In addition, the committee (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) both in the resolution "30.8.2017"

     and also the committee (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in the entire OLG judgment of

   October 18, 2017Az 18 U 69/16 does not explain how the parachute-fallen date "31.7.2006" results.

 

   The 3rd paragraph, page 6, of the resolution 8/30/17 is concluded with the enigmatic date

   "7/31/2006"which proves the arbitrariness of the panel and the fraud / crimes with which the panel

   in any case tried to enforce the absurd "statute of limitations".

 

   The reader finds the same puzzling date "July 31, 2006" in the judgment of October 18, 2017

     (page 23)

 

   According to the StGB, this is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years. That justifies the

   present Public liability suit against the women STEIN & Co (Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirchner).

     The date "7/31/2006", which fell with the parachute, will later serve the committee for others

     criminal conclusions and "the fraud is served as being in favour of the plaintiff"

    

  The ladies are obviously above the laws and can have any statutory monthly period

     lengthen or shorten.

 

C2. The distortion of the facts committed in page 7 (decision 30.8.17) and in the judgment

     18.10.2017, Page 23, version 29 pages) serves the above-mentioned goal, i.e. the limitation of

     claims for damages enforce and "cap" the crimes of FA-Mettmann

 

   In the entire OLG decision of "August 30, 2017" Az 18 U 69/16 signed criminal trio (Ms. STEIN / Ms.

     Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) as well as in the judgment 18.10.2017 of the criminal trio (Ms. STEIN / Ms.

     Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner)

 

     Nowhere is a word written about the often directed complaint / reminder that the

     Bank seizures from 1986-1989 have not yet been lifted, although three subject areas

       heads of the FA-Mettmann had applied for repeal twice. The head of the swamp

       (M. Eigendoof) was against it.

 

           "As long as the damage intervention lasts, the limitation period cannot start."

                                   the BGH decided (which is still valid today).

  

   If the criminal OLG-D'dorf committees with the offenders (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser)

 and (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) reported the above facts in the facts of the case,

     then the PKH applied for would have to approve and on 18.10.2017 in the judgment on 18 U 69/16

     of Compensation need to agree. The compensation, however, contradicted the fraud plan

  

   The OLG committees wanted in any case the "statute of limitations" ordered by the LG-D´dorf on

   07/07/2014 enforce, therefore of the bank seizures and the application of the 3 department

   heads of area and thus distorted / manipulated the facts as it was convenient for them.

   This is also punishable by § 339 StGB (= German Penal Code) and thus the present lawsuit / PKH

   for official liability of the criminal Mrs. STEIN founded

.

C3. According to the offenders (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser), compensation for pain and

         suffering is also "Statute of limitations" (see decision 30.8.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, page 10, point e)

         as well as in the judgment of October 18, 2017, to Az 18 U 69/16 (page 27) signed Ms. STEIN / Ms.

      Glaeser /Ms Kirschner also as statute-barred contain

 

According to the old version of the German Civil Code (= BGB) and the new version of the German

   Civil Code, the damage to health expires in 30 years.

 

      The lawsuit 2b o 271/01 was filed on February 5, 2001 and the statute of limitations was

     interrupted beforehand (primary legal protection). When did the 30-year limitation period of the

     BGB expire?

    

       If the above bank seizures were taken into account, the limitation period does not yet have

       started to run. This is convincing again about the intent of the offenders who have the goal

     "Enforce the statute of limitations for all applications"; about their criminal liability according

       to § 339 StGB and over there should be no doubt about the merits of the present action / PKH.

  

     In addition, it has been repeatedly stated that the compensation for pain and suffering in Az

     2b o 268/01 is not identical

     The cause has, as the requested compensation for pain and suffering to Az 2b o 271/01 for the crimes

     of the Tax-office (= FA)-Mettmann (loss of subsidy etc.), even if they happen to have the same amount).

    

The allegation of the OLG committee was also dealt with in detail in the appeal of August 18, 2016

     (Pp. 59-60, as well as in brief July 12, 2012, pp. 3, 94, 117) and invalidated, but the two OLG

     committees wanted in any case the claims for damages of the plaintiff with erroneous allegations

     destroy. This is convincing of the intent for a criminal offense within the meaning of Section 339

     StGB and the local merits of the action.

     Incidentally, what the trio (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) in the PKH negative decision of

     August 30, 2017 to reject claims due to alleged statute of limitations is unchanged

   in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017, so that the criminal offenses of the OLG committees

   is repeated and justifies the present action / PKH.

1. Contributions by Ms. STEIN to the judgment Az 18 U 69/16 so that the trial fraud of October 18,

     2017 succeeds.

 

D1. In addition to the offenses of Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser described above, for which Ms. STEIN

       with her signature as an accomplice, Ms. STEIN is also responsible for the

     multiple distortions of the facts for the deliberate lies of the 2 women (Ms. Fuhr / Ms.

     Glaeser) as well as for the legal violations committed in the resolutions signed by her and

     Judgment of October 18, 2017.

 

D2. The distortion of the facts concerns, among other things, the suppression of the facts that the

      whole 2001, in the attorney's pleadings only of "lawsuit" and "petitions" or "lawsuit with."

       PKH request of the same date "or" Increase in suit "is read what the 2 OLG committees have

      concealed; and in this sense only from the PKH application dated 5.2.2001 on the part of the

       OLG Committee (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in the judgment of October 18, 2017.

     The RA Letter of July 17, 2003 (GA sheet 283) that the RA filed an UNCONDITIONAL ACTION on

     February 5, 2001is mentioned in the facts of the judgment (page 12); But neither in the LG

       judgment on May 11, 2016 still in the OLG decisions of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 or 30.8.2017 and

     also not in the OLG judgment from 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 is mentioned.

     The importance of the statute of limitations was completely concealed.

 

     Hiding / hiding the fact and its meaning is not an "accidental" one Error or overlook of the

       document "but a targeted maneuver around the" legal consequences of the unconditional

       action "to circumvent the limitation period and thus the plaintiff damage.

     The intentional and criminal act of the LG / OLG committees is covered by § 339 StGB and sees

     Imprisonment (PRISON) from 5 years ago.

 

D3. The "announcement of the newly drafted complaints from December 29, 2001 to the court

       received on December 31, 2001 mean, according to the BGB (old version), an "interruption of the

       statute of limitations"

 

     The fact that the newly drafted claims of the OFD-D'dorf have been made known proves one

       Letter from the Supervision of Tax-offices (OFD) dated February 27, 2002 signed Nissen

     (GA Bl. = Sheet Nr. of files: 168)

 

     All of the above-mentioned bodies (LG / OLG) have the meaning of the OFD letter as well as the

     "newly formulated Claims of 29.12.2001 "kept silent about the statute of limitations, and only

       mention the PKH-Application dated February 5, 2001 in order to come to the conclusion that no

       unconditional action was raised on February 5, 2001 or according to the old version of the German

     Civil Code (BGB) until December 31, 2001. (see OLG judgment, page 23, point a)

 

     The criminal offense charged all signatories of the LG / OLG-PKH negative decisions and

     Judgments on LG-Az 2b o 271/01, as well as the judgment on OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 u.v.V.

 

D4. The most conspicuous legal fraud committed, in page 22 (last lines) of the OLG judgment of

     October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (version of 29 pages), reveals the influence of Ms. Glaeser,

     but all signatories of the OLG ruling of October 18, 2017 were aware of the crime.

 

     On page 22, where the committee (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) reported fraud with the

     6-month extension of § 209 BGB (old version), which the above as "BENEFIT OF THE CLAIMENT"

     (Page 25) serve, it can be seen that the ladies are going to do so by naming the date 6/30/2000

      to mislead the reader and to harm the plaintiff. This is punishable under Section 339 of the German

     Penal Code (= StGB)

     A date of 6/30/2000 results only after adding the fraudulent 6 months to the fictitious

     End of December 31, 1999, i.e. the alleged end of the suspension of the limitation period (due to

     the primary legal protection); Afterwards, according to the OLG committee, the confirmation had to

     follow:

     "The 3-year limitation period according to the old version of the German Civil Code to start running

     again."

   Instead of repeating the sentence of (3 years limitation period etc), add the 6 months and

   then determine the supposedly remaining 18 (?) months (pages 24, 25) that they also need

   in order to be able to assert that no unconditional (limitation-interrupting) Lawsuit is filed.

   The criminal liability of women STEIN / Glaeser / Kirschner according to § 339 StGB is clear.

 

D5. In addition, she (Ms. STEIN) should have known that complaints were filed with the FG for

     reimbursement of the overpaid or seized or withheld tax due to unlawful tax assessment notices

     cause an interruption of the statute of limitations and insofar the assertion (Pages 22, 24) that the

   FG process 4 K 3384/01 would not have interrupted the statute of limitations, aIs an empty phrase

     that only serves to explain the alleged "limitation of claims" and the litigation fraud to belittle

   (See NCB of 19 March 2018, page 9); Criminal offense according to § 339 StGB undisputed.

 

D6. About the beginning of the limitation period (page 22, of the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017,

     version 29 pages)     the OLG committee denies the legal effect of the FG lawsuit with Az 4 K 3384/01 and

     thus not only calls on the plaintiff and his legal representatives, but also on the BGH judges. Latter

     but prefer to remain silent about the fraudulent proceedings of the LG / OLG judges and

     no positive discharge delivered. So it stays with the cited point D5 above.

     (see also Not-Admission of Revision (= NZB) pages 7-8 of 19 March 2018)

 

D7. The plaintiff repeatedly complained about the "styling of the court files on the part of the

       Court staff ". In the above-mentioned OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 from page 19 and mostly

       on page 20, Point 2, (version 29 page) the reader finds explanations that are more than excuses

     and less than legal arguments could work. Ms. STEIN claims

    

   "The plaintiff attempted the RA procedure by sending the "souped-up documents" to pry out !! "

      

     Towards the end of the paragraph on page 20, even the RAe are accused of having the files (which

     are open to inspection received) to have their hair done.

     The GA are only sent to OFD-D'dorf, RA D.Z., and to RA Fassnacht.

     The probability that the GA within the LG-D'dorf and OLG-D'dorf are coiffed is

     became undisputed due to the evidence.

     It is correct that the plaintiff personally sent 17 forwardings to the OLG from Aug. 2017

     Az 18 U 69/16 has sent more than 200 missing pages from the "souped-up"  files (GA 

     (the OLG has only confirmed 13 broadcasts !!)

    

   The short time, the high costs and the work pressure did not allow it back then

     to forward further missing sheets; some of these are named here:

 

1. The list for Az 2b o 77/08 (16 pages) of the 273 illegal notices of the FA-Mettmann is missing

       for the period 1979-1992, sent to Az 2b o 271/01 at that time with a brief from RA-Lasaroff

1. The "patent grant certificate (colored) on the Antikythera mechanism" is missing
2. The colored picture about the "Antikythera patent mechanism" is missing
3. The immediate complaint of October 9, 2007 against LG decision of September 18, 2007 is

     missing signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle (i.e. against the trial fraud of

       September 18, 2007)

2. The parties have not been summoned to the hearing on Oct. 1, 2002 on 2.8.2002
3. The court order of February 18, 2002 is missing that the "newly drafted claims" of

         December 29, 2001 on Az 2b o 271/01 "has been announced to the defendant".

  

   The above-mentioned missing documents (see also point D3 above) show that only LG / OLG judges

     were interested in removing the leaves from the GA. Therefore in some places of the GA,

     foreign sheets (tables of salaries and allowances !!) can be found.

  

   According to our knowledge, the care to respect the files rests with the office (= GS),

     but also burdens the chairwoman.

    

   Especially since the separation of the 2 procedures (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01) on the part of

     Stockschlaeder-Nöll is carried out, and when sorting some of the original sheets that belonged to Az

     2b o 271/01, are buried in Az 2b o 118/99 or Stockschlaeder-Nöll has completely removed from the

     files. The GS cannot, however, complain if the chairperson removes sheets from the GA.

 

D8. The "COVERING" of the illegal composition of the LG committees obviously constitutes one

         special preference of the OLG judges.

 

     There is reason to mention the LG decision three times in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017,

     page 27dated May 11, 2005 (signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dress / Galle); on May 11th, 2005

     the bias Motion against Strupp-Müller on the part of the above-mentioned body, which is not

     responsible according to GVP and proclaimed a body violating Section 75 of the GVG or Article 101

     of the Basic Law;

 

     The OLG committee (STEIN / Glaeser / Kirschner) but not a word about the illegal

     and does not mention that the earlier occupation of the 18th Senate (Malsch & Co)

     looked over it.

     The application for annulment against the LG decision of May 11, 2005 has never been decided.

     The plaintiff waited for the decision on the annulment and was not forever

     remained inactive; because the monthly payments for court fees

     had been neat and received at the court treasury every month since August 2004.

 

D9. The resolutions with the discharge of Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser burden the signatories

       (Ms. STEIN & Co)

 

D10. The committee Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner has in judgment of October 18, 2017 on

         Az 18 U 69/16 (Page 2) the appeal on points of law (regarding the appeal) is not admitted.

 

         Thus, the committee violated the BGH decision, which says that the revision always

       is to be admitted if a judge was involved in an earlier instance (e.g. Ms. Fuhr)

       See BGHZ 172, 250 in NJW 2007, 2702; This was emphasized in all of the plaintiff's writings

       In addition to all other criminal offenses, this arbitrary blocking of legal recourse is effective

       of the OLG committee to enforce the rights of the plaintiff, particularly serious, and

       the signatories of the judgment of October 18, 2017, and Ms. Fuhr deserve the name of the

       "Criminal", because the offense committed according to the StGB with 5 years imprisonment

         is punished.

    

 The finding that the criminal trio (STEIN / Fuhr / Glaeser) on August 30, 2017, as well as the criminal

       Trio (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) on October 18, 2017 only had one thing in mind, i.e.

       the process to realize fraud is confirmed again; therefore the fraudsters inside not bothered about

     the text of the laws in force; they were sure that nothing could happen.

 

1. Estimation of the damage as a function of the value in dispute, taking into account the fraudulent

       proceedings of Ms. Fuhr and the Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

 

The court is offered the following estimate of the damage in accordance with Section 287 of the German Code

of Civil Procedure:

In the appeal of 2b o 271/01 (with Az 18 U 69/16 at the OLG-D'dorf), about 19 OLG judges had committed crimes

according to § 339 StGB until March 2021. Including Ms. Fuhr on Jan. 12, 2017 and August 30, 2017.

 

                                      The names of the offenders OLG judges are:

 

Malsch, Haarmann, Ms. Schroeder, Ms. Anderegg, Ms. Baan, Ms. Glaeser, Anger, Ms. Stein, Ms. Fuhr,

Ms. Kirschner, Roßwinkel, Ms. Barbian, Ms. Skibbe, Bünten, Ms. Jungclaus, Wermeckes,

Ms. Grabensee, C.-G. Müller, Dahm (list not exhaustive)

 

Because the local lawsuit / PKH only the consequences of the fraudulent proceedings of Ms. STEIN /

Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner has as an object, one can assume the amount in dispute of the OLG judgment

18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 and limit the number of judges involved to those who actually caused

damage in 2015-2017. These were the OLG judges: STEIN / Fuhr / Glaeser, STEIN / Glaeser / Kirschner,

Malsch / Glaeser / Anger and Ms. Fuhr (The consequences of Ms. Fuhr's fraud due to participation

in the committee on August 30, 2017 are already in of the lawsuit / PKH of 8.2.2021 has been determined

and taken into account, so that must be deducted here

 

The estimated damage of litigation fraud on 3 September 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

was already determined in the lawsuit / PKH against the above. The two losses already determined will be

deducted; what remains is the damage caused by Ms. STEIN & Co with the fraud on Az 18 U 69/16 for 2017).

The invoice / estimate looks like this:

 

The amount in dispute of the OLG appeal of Az 18 U 69/16 was in the amount of € 1,973,319.93; (see proof)

 

Taking into account the fact that the OLG committee STEIN / Glaeser / Kirschner caused the remaining damage

(excluding the damage to Ms. Fuhr and Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) (the costs / fees of the Advocates

(=RAe) will be finalized in taken into account in a new lawsuit), surrendered:

 

                                       € 1,973,319.93 - € 51,929.47 - € 429,845.99 = € 1,491,544.47

                      

Of course, the above damage assessment could be refined, depending on the value of each

judgment / resolution, the processing time (or the blockade) until the judgment / resolution is issued and its effect

(whether only had an individual effect or had an effect on the entire procedure)

The refinement, however, comes up against real limits with regard to the number of signatures of the chairman,

because each time the chairman has to sign the respective resolution.

 

1. Knowledge of the person and the beginning of the material damage

 

The offenders (Ms. STEIN) and their assistants (Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) confirmed the intent to fraudulent

proceedings immediately and repeatedly.

The start of the damage, however, is only on September 19, 2019 when the fraud of the OLG judges Ms. STEIN

and the assistants (Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) discovered or completely in the judgment of 18.10.2017

on Az 18 U 69/16 and reported to the Düsseldorf (= D'dorf) public prosecutor's office with a criminal complaint.

 

The procedure LG-Az 2b o 271/01, OLG-Az 18 U 69/16, BGH Az III ZR 332/17 has ended, as already written

several times, after receipt of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on October 6, 2018. Insofar

no statute of limitations occurred.

Knowledge of the start of the damage also requires knowledge of the start of interest payments (i.e. from 19.9.2019)

 

1. Immaterial damage caused by the criminal OLG-D'dorf committee (Ms. STEIN/Ms. Glaeser/

     Ms. Kirschner) in 2017 up to the discovery of litigation fraud relating to Az 18 U 69/16

 

The plaintiff was forced for almost 3 years (October 2016 to September 2019) to research the method of fraudulent

proceedings of the OLG judges to Az 18 U 69/16, to collect evidence, with well-known lawyers according to the

evidence in the judgment of 18.10.2017 to discuss, to inquire about RAe, and at the same time to conduct

the contacts and work for the NZB at the BGH.

These weren't easy tasks for a non-lawyer. The nerves are overloaded.

 

In addition, there were the claims for payment from the court treasury for the costs of litigation fraud.

The health situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the plaintiff also had to take medication for previously

unknown symptoms of illness.

The cost of medication is a small item compared to the material damage, but the consequences of the health

symptoms have now been medically confirmed and have become even more serious.

Neither medication nor medical certificates are presented; The judges, no matter who they are, also have no right

to learn about the plaintiff's specific illnesses.

It goes without saying that the immaterial damage caused at that time due to the almost 3 years of exposure

can now be estimated at € 24,000. The immaterial damage was caused by the fraudsters and criminals in

OLG-D'dorf Richter Talaren (Ms. STEIN / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner)

 

1. Application for exclusion for OLG judges Ms. Dr. Hoffmann and Ms. Gassan

The OLG judges known to the plaintiff (of the 11th, 18th, 24th Senate were loyal executors of the LG orders.

They knew that even for crimes within the meaning of the StGB, people would not be sent to prison.

 

The exclusion of Ms. Gassan is due to her abuse of § 348 ZPO to Az 2b o 76/20 (Az directly connected with

the LG-2b o 271/01 and the useless turn out expenses (=NGA) or with the present proceedings)

 

The current chairwoman, Ms. Dr. Hoffmann recommended and approved. Both are therefore excluded as

criminals from each of the plaintiff's proceedings

 

In addition, all named OLG judges of the 18th and 11th or 24th Senate who have been accused of fraudulent

proceedings / perversion of the law are excluded (regardless of the case) where they are now sitting in which

Senate or Chamber).

We reserve the right to make further presentations (on the requests for exclusion and on the lawsuit / motions).

 

1. Emergency attorney

 

Despite the intensive efforts, the undersigned has not found an attorney who would be willing to override mandates

with the subject of claims for damages due to the judge's perversion of rights. to take. 

List of requested RAe is provided with the completed official form of the declaration personal and economic

circumstances

An emergency attorney for the plaintiff according to § 78b Civil Process Code (=ZPO) is therefore applied

for in the legal proceedings to order.

 

Requests;                  It is requested:

 

1. After the annulment of the judgment of October 18, 2017, to sentence Az 18 U 69/16 to the

   defendant country, to the plaintiff € 1,491,544.47 plus interest of 5 percentage points above the

   base rate since October 18, 2017 to pay

 

2. To condemn the defendant country to pay reasonable compensation for pain and suffering of at

     least € 24,000.00 plus interest of 5 percentage points above the base rate since October 18, 2017

 

The court is written to deal with the case quickly and an Az is sent here in advance

and to make the copy known to the NRW legal representative (due to the statute of limitations).

 

If you have any questions, please ask here.

 

Kind regards

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Investments

OLG-Düsseldorf (= D´dorf), judgment on Az 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017; Pages 1 + 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                              Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                             Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                            45219 Essen

                                                                                                                                             Oct 15, 2020

In advance by fax: 0211-4971-548

 

Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf

18. Civil Senate

Cecilien Allee 3

40474 Düsseldorf

 

Abbreviations used

  

AG = AmtsGericht = district court of one magistrate

Az = AktenZeichen = File number

Bez. = Bezug = As to, reference

BGB a.F. = Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch alte Fassung= Civil Code old version =

BGH = BundesGerichtsHof =   Federal Court of Justice

D´dorf = Düsseldorf = city of N.W.-Germany

FA= Finanzamt = revenue-office

FG= FinanzGericht = Fiscal Tribunal

GG = GrundGesetz = Basic Law

GVG = GerichtsVerfassungsGesetz=   Judicial Constitutional Law

GVP = GeschäftsVerteilungsPlan = Business Distribution Plan

LG = Landgericht = Regional Court

Mettmann = city of Germany about 30 Km N.W. of D´dorf

NZB = Nicht ZulassungsBeschwerde = non-admission complaint

o.g. = oben genannte = above mentioned

OLG= Oberlandessgericht= Court of Appeal (of Düsseldorf)

PKH=ProzessKostenHilfe= application for legal aid

VRiLG = Vorsitzender Richter an Landgericht = Chairman of a chamber of regional court

ZPO = Zivil Prozess Ordnung = Code Civile

 

Ref: OLG-Az 18 W 74/19 (LG-Az 2b o 145/19; PKH application of August 19, 2019;

                                                                                   LG decision of August 26, 2019)

Bez.: Public liability suit with PKH v. 5.2.2001 Az 2b o 271/01, with claims for damages due to

           the crimes of FA-Mettmann; Confirmation of the Advocate on July 17th, 2003 that on 5.2.2001

             he brought unconditional action. PKH dated February 5, 2001 for action according to BGB

             old version, is indisputable.

      

         : Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Mr. Schumacher. On November 28, 2000, issued a decision to take

           evidence and ordered the medical association D'dorf to prove that the plaintiff for the process

           pending at the 2b chamber is incapable of litigation; the decision to take evidence was passed,

           but on 11/29/2001 by another Chamber occupation cancelled;

 

           Ms. Fuhr is promoted to OLG judge, H. Schumacher to VRiLG. Reasons?

         : Minutes of the LG hearing on November 12, 2002;

           Confirmation of the legal representative (Mr. Nissen):

         "the bank seizures of the FA-Mettmann causally for the failure of the company of Plaintiff"

 

       : LG decision of 04/04/2003, PKH rejection, signed by an illegal LG committee Brückner-

           Hoffmann & Co (violation of § 75 GVG and Article 101 GG on legal judges);

 

         : OLG-11 Senate (Bünten) praises the legal violation of 04/04/2003 of the LG-illegal body;

           In 2003, Mrs. Brückner-Hoffmann was promoted to chairwoman judge of a chamber of

           commerce.

 

         : Rejection request against Stockschlaeder-Nöll from December 18, 2002 to Az 2b o 271/01,

           decided only on January 17th, 2008 (after almost 6 years!) by an unlawful LG committee (Ms.

             Köstner-Plümpe /Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt, violation of Art. 101 GG u. against § 75 GVG) and

             rejected as unfounded.

 

           : Motions to repeal the resolutions signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Az 2b o 271/01 since

             December 18, 2002 never decided; All accused LG / OLG judges are silent about it.

           The new OLG committee (Barbian & Co) is silent; Köstner-Plümpe promoted to OLG judge!

        

         : LG Decision May 11, 2005 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Drees / Galle (last without GVP

             responsibility)

             The rejection request against Ms. Strupp-Müller, is rejected as unfounded.

 

           Result of the legal infringement: Ms. Strupp-Müller never legally exonerated; she shouldn't

           participate in other decisions; anyway on 8/9/2007 and September 18, 2007 dares 2 frauds

 

         : LG decisions of August 9, 2007 and September 18, 2007 signed by unlawful LG bodies

           (Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) and litigation fraud that the court fees

             allegedly not paid in full; Promotion of Ms. Strupp-Müller to the chairwoman of a chamber;

           Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser is bullied and sent away to AG-Ratingen.

 

         : Help from the cost officer Mr. Habich on August 29, 2007 on litigation fraud of August 9, 2007

             and September 18, 2007 to the above LG judges; Manipulation of the file contents 2b o 271/01.

 

         : Stockschlaeder-Nöll (helped by Mr. Galle) secretly corresponds (2008-2016) with FG-

               D'dorf presiding judge SCHUCK to turn off the plaintiff and the proceedings

               2b o 77/08 to be destroyed; Participant in plot Mr. Malsch of the OLG-18th Senate

 

       : MURDER ATTEMPT on April 16, 2008 on the A5 motorway south of Karlsruhe,against the plaintiff !!

           How did the murderer know that the plaintiff was driving the A5 in a strange car that day?

 

       : 14 LG resolutions signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann from April 23/24, 2009

           that the due of the secret motions from July-Sept. 2008 at the AG-Essen, accused Ms.

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser (to eliminate the plaintiff as incapable of

          litigation), allegedly not biased would be. (Violations of the aforementioned judges against

           Art. 101 GG and against § 75 GVG never judged)

 

           : 99 OLG decisions of the 11th Senate from February 16, 2010 to May 12, 2010 by a putsch club

             by 9 OLG judges (organized in 3 groups, such as criminals), led by Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus/

             / Wermeckes to create a fait accompli against the plaintiff. The coup failed against the plaintiff;

               the club is dissolved; the members "transferred".

           Promotion of Mrs. Grabensee to chairwoman of the Higher Regional Court judge of a criminal senate.

 

         LG default judgment on March 16, 2011 signed by 2 rejected judges (Stockschlaeder- Nöll

           and Ms. Dr. Hoffmann; Case blocked; Promotion of Ms. Dr. Hoffmann as chairwoman .

               Expert opinion from Dr. Med. K.-H. L. are moved, cannot be found, suppressed

 

         : LG-PKH Resolutions, on 26.11.2012 and from May 24, 2014 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

           Ms. Jürging / Ms Brecht and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag ; alleged statute

             of limitations Claims on December 31, 2009 or June 30, 2010; Promotion of Ms. Brecht to the

             OLG-D´dorf and Ms. Freitag to the LG chairwoman judge. Reasons ?

 

         : LG order of 7.7.2014 to the OLG about final result on the immediate complaint;

           "The Chamber insists on the statute of limitations", signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht

             / Mr. Feldmann

        

       : The lawyer of the defendant country, Stef. Minnerop, recommand/requires from LG to "punch

           through the Procedure 2b o 271/01 "also" alla gangster kind ". A little later the LG / OLG tries

 

       : OLG decision 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger; Limitation of Claims

           allegedly on July 31, 2006; Litigation fraud by manipulating the legal texts and the like

           Ms. Glaeser. Detecting litigation fraud the presiding judge Malsch is retired

 

       : LG-D´dorf final judgment 11.5.2016 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Ms.Gundlach /Frank

            alleged limitation of claims on July 31, 2006; complete takeover / identification with

           litigation fraud of 3.9.2015 of the OLG committee Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger for Az 18 W 1/13

          

       : Voluntary self-disclosure of bias according to § 48 ZPO of Ms.Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach

         for Az 2b o 271/01 without time restriction; Then removal of Ms. Gundlach from 2b chamber

 

         : LG decision Az 2b o 76/16 dated June 16, 2016 signed Ms. Junglaus / Ms. Harsta / Witte;

           Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach (with reference to voluntary disclosure of partiality

           Az 2b o 271/01) excluded;

           Despite the exclusion, Stockschlaeder-Nöll continues as if nothing happened !!

 

         : Appeal of August 18, 2016 against LG final judgment May 11, 2016 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

             Ms. Gundlach;

 

             Proof that Ms. Fuhr was excluded according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO; Dozens of evidence for that

             Crimes of FA-Mettmann and of the judges Ms.Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Stöve / Ms. Wolks-Falter

 

         : PKH application dated August 19, 2016 for appeal 18 U 69/16 and application for exclusion

           against Ms. Glaeser because of the litigation fraud on Az 18 W 1/13 on September 3, 2015 with

           manipulation of the legal texts

        

         : Appeal procedure OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), proof of the according to § 41 No. 6

           ZPO exclusion of Ms. Fuhr; Forwarding in Aug./Sept. 2017 to the 18th Senate of coiffed more

           than 200 sheets from the files of 2b o 271/01; "done up" by the judicial staff (judges

           Inside). The evidence from the OLG-18. Senate (Ms. Stein & Co) have been ignored.

      

         : OLG decision January 12, 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16; Rejection as unfounded by the exclusion

         against Ms. Glaeser, signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Kirschner; she is needed in litigation fraud

                

         : OLG-PKH negative decision on August 30, 2017 for Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr /

             Ms. Glaeser (on page 6 of Decision); "The claimant's claims for damages would allegedly no

             later than 31.7.2006 statute of limitations; Litigation fraud on the part of the above allegedly

             "IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMENT" !!!

 

         : OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Fr. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner;

           "LEGAL FRAUD" with the 6 months extension of § 209 BGB old version (IN FAVOUR OF THE

           APPLICANT) on running belt; Claims allegedly on June 30th, 2000; !? statute of limitations

               on July 31, 2006 at the latest;

         : Appeal dismissed; Appeal not admitted; Default judgment (= VU)

             of 16.3.2011 maintained !!; The claimant bears the costs!

 

         : Non-admission complaint (NZB) directed to the BGH, Az III ZR 332/17 (Mr Herrmann /Mr Seiters

               /Mr Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttscher); Evidence of the crimes of FA-Mettmann, the trial

           fraud of the OLG 18th Senate in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 and the non-

           limitation of claims Provided in 14 pages but ignored by the BGH. Violation of the BGH standard

             case law

 

         : May 24, 2018 and July 26, 2018, decisions of the BGH on Az III ZR 332/17: Seiter's rapporteur

           Rejection of the NZB and the hearing complaint with 5 lines! No relief for the right flexors

 

           : In 2019 Ms. Gundlach will return to the 2b civil chamber. Reasons not known.

        

           : Public liability suit with PKH from August 19, 2019, LG-Az 2b o 145/19, for the resumption of

             the Az 2b o 271/01. Serious allegations and Evidence of LG / OLG litigation fraud on Az 2b o 271/01

             

         : 19.9.2019: Criminal complaint to the D'dorf public prosecutor's office against the OLG judges

           Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirchner and against LG judges Ms.Stockschlaeder-

             Nöll, Ms. Brecht, Ms. Gundlach et al. for criminal offenses / perversion of justice / violations of

             Art. 101 GG etc

         : 16.1.2020: Criminal complaint against Ms. Strupp-Müller, Mr. Galle, cost officials Mr. Habich

                 and others

       : February 22, 2020: Criminal complaint against Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Wolks-Falter / Ms. Grabensee

             / Mr. Malsch /Mr. Bünten / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes et others, for perversion of justice;

             No Az despite 3 memories !!

       : April 27, 2020: Criminal complaint against the judiciary Ms. Krüger and against the LG judge

                         Ms. Dr. Hoffmann due to perversion of the law on January 23, 2020 to Az 2b o 271/01

 

       : LG-PKH-negative decision Aug. 26, 2019 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Jürging/Ms. Büchler

               to Az 2b o 145/19; The lawsuit allegedly has no prospect of success; Ms. Büchler leaves the 2b.

 

       : Approx. End of Nov. / beginning of Dec. 2019: removal of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from the 2b

         civil chamber. Ms. Dr. Hoffmann becomes chairwoman of the 2b civil chamber around the

           beginning of December 2019 !!

 

     : Request for exclusion from 7.1.2020 to Az 18 W 74/19 against the judges Ms. Stein / Fr. Fuhr /

           Ms.Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner due to several fraudulent proceedings relating to OLG-18 U 69/16

           (according to note in page 15 of the PKH application from August 19, 2019 on LG Az 2b o 145/19)

           and reference to the there Requests

    

     : Application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE according to § 78b ZPO and list of Jan. 21, 2020 of the

           requested RAe for LG / OLG proceedings, and Ask for the name of the rapporteur on 18 W 74/19

        

       : Reminder of March 2, 2020 to send the name of the rapporteur here

             and timeliness of the application according to § 78b ZPO

        

     : OLG notification v. 17.7.2020 signed Ms. Stein, including the composition of the 18th Senate

             Ms. Stein and Ms. Glaeser are there; The personal information given to the suspects is ignored

 

   : Request for exclusion from July 22nd, 2020 against Ms. Stein and against Ms. Glaeser because of

         the existing Risk of repetition of the lawsuit deceit / perversions (in favour of the plaintiff!)

       (Pages 25, 26, 28 of the judgment of October 18, 2017, Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms.

         Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner, Version 29 pages) and as in the PKH decision of August 30, 2017

       signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser (page 6).

          

   : Aug. 18, 2020; OLG decision on Az 18 W 74/19 signed Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe;

           The accused OLG judges (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) are excluded because

               permanently eliminated; Ms. Fuhr was already transferred!

  

     : 25 Aug 2020: Application to delete the name of Ms. Jürging in the above Decision 18.8.2020

             Az 18 W 74/19, page 2: Concerns about the lack of official statements from

         accused Mrs. Stein & Co (case name of Mrs. Jürging in the decision 18.8.20 finished on 6.10.2020)

 

   : Sept. 10, 2020, notification from the LG-2b civil chamber that Ms. Gundlach will leave the

                 chamber, retired on September 2, 2020.

               The 2nd time that Ms. Gundlach leaves the 2b chamber !!

 

   : Immediate complaint 25.9.2020 against LG decision. August 26, 2020 (because of rejection of bias

         Ms. Stockschlaeder- Nöll)

 

   : Immediate complaint 25.9.2020 against LG decision. August 26, 2020 Az 2b o 145/19 (because of

       PKH rejection.)

 

   : Decision of October 6, 2020 on Az 18 W 74/19 signed Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe

     (the accused OLG judges Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner allegedly did not commit any legal

     infractions / criminal offenses committed on 18 U 69/16; Also the LG judges Ms. Stockschlaeder-

     Nöll / Ms. Gundlach too the main proceedings Az 2b o 271/01 had not committed any perversion

     of justice; Rejection of the application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE, legal complaint not

       permitted; Complaint procedure costs according to No. 1812 GKG! wearing.... ??!!

 

Here: complaint / notice of hearing against the OLG decision October 6, 2020 signed Ms. Barbian /

              Mr. Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe

       : Explanations what in the contested OLG decision 10/6/2020 deliberately suppressed / distorted

             /is set out incorrectly (see long list in "Reference" above)

       : Application for annulment of the contested decision October 6, 2020 and of the judgment of

           October 18, 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16, as well as authorization from the PKH for Az 2b o 145/19 or

         for resumption the official liability suit LG-D´dorf 2b o 271/01 with the claims for damages

       : There are no prerequisites for the application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE according to § 78b ZPO

           

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

A.

That in the "Bez." Listed, helps the OLG committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) to recognize, what

was forgotten in their last decision of Oct. 6, 2020 on Az 18 W 74/19 (LG Az 2b o 145/19) / suppressed or distorted

in order to come to the conclusion that the accused OLG CRIMINALS (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser /

Ms. Kirschner) and the LG criminals Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach, allegedly no fraud, no perversion

of justice, no criminal offenses. No criminal offenses "evident" writes the OLG committee, and how usual in applications

for rejection against judges, the plaintiff has presented everything "inconclusive"

Unfortunately, the criminal charges against the criminals with RichterTalaren are still pending or in processing

at the D'dorf public prosecutor's office since 19.9.2019.

 

As a summary and preliminary result, it can be said here that more than 2 dozen OLG / LG trial fraudsters are

removed from the plaintiff's line of fire or from their positions in the Senate or from the 2b civil chamber, or retired,

or in other courts " have been moved ". Many women (OLG / LG judges) accused of perverting the law have

been promoted.

The final result (payment to the plaintiff of his compensation claims for the crimes of the FA-Mettmann and for the

fraudulent proceedings of the OLG / LG guild) is yet to come. This letter explains why. The law is stronger than

the arbitrariness of some judges.

 

B.

 

The decision 6.10.2020 Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe to Az 18 W 74/19 (LG 2b o 145/19) recalls the ruling

of the former finance minister of the FRG, Schäuble, that the Greek government or the Greek people because

of the damage (destruction of infrastructure, executions of civilians, Burning of whole villages, sinking of fishing boats,

confiscation of food, hunger, diseases etc.), suffered

during the 1st and 2nd World War, has no claims for damages against FRG. It is remembered:

 

The reparation debt of the FRG to Greece amounts to 332.8 billion € (as of 2012)

 

Forget everything ??!! ΑΛΛΑΞΕ Ο ΜΑΝΟΛΙΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΟΡΕΣΕ ΤΑ ΡΟΥΧΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΛΛΟΙΩΣ?

                                                άλλαξε ο Μανολιός και φόρεσε τα ρούχα του αλλοιώς?

                             Translation from Greek: (Manolios = Name of a Person)

                                     DID MANOLIOS CHANGE AND WEAR HIS CLOTHES ELSE?

                

When asked whether the accused OLG / LG judges (Ms. Stein/Ms. Fuhr/Ms. Glaeser/Ms. Kirschner,

and Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach) have committed legal infractions / fraudulent proceedings /

criminal offenses secondly Section 339 of the Criminal Code, is referenced to the extensive immediate

complaints, hearings and Exclusion requests against the above, to shorten the answers.

                                 : The result is: no statute of limitations

 

C.

 

Most of the documents would have to be contained in the files of the LG case 2b o 271/01,

as well as in the files of the OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 and the PKH applications (if they are not "fudged").

The plaintiff last saw the contents of the status on a memory stick in 2017:

He found the big "FRISIER-AKTION" of the LG / OLG judges and therefore in Aug./Sept. 2017 in 17 transmitted

more than 200 sheets (= documents removed from file 2b o 271/01) to the OLG-18. Senate. The documents

have been ignored by Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner. Since then (May 2017) a lot of water

has run down the Rhine; A short reply is given here so that the allegations of the new OLG committee

(Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) are exposed as false / distorted.

The appeal 18 U 69/16 and the NZB at the BGH Az III ZR 332/17 also apply in full here.

 

1.

Question: why in the OLG decision October 6, 2020 (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) it has been suppressed

that on April 4, 2003 the LG decision on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Brückner-Hoffmann / Strupp-Müller / Adam,

(GA sheet no. 206) unlawful was? and the PKH application for the loss of the subsidy bonus etc was considered

rejected? although the decision was appealed against? is it also not visible?

2.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been

                 suppressed that the OLG-11. Senate (Bünten) the legal violation of the LG committee of

               4 April 2003 (Brückner-Hoffmann & Co), instead of admitting the complaint, and revoke the

          decision; are not Criminal offenses evident? and the responsibility of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll

          for the blackmail the rapporteur (to reject all the plaintiff's requests so that the judiciary does

          not bogged down?) also error-free? or have (Ms. Stein/Ms.Fuhr /Ms. Glaeser /Ms. Kirschner) a

           word in the PKH-Decision of August 30, 2017 or in judgment 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 on

           the violation of the law written? also not relevant for the fraudsters?

           Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

3.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Ms. Barbian /Mr Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) it has been

suppressed that after that (i.e. after PKH rejection on April 4th, 2003) Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann became the presiding

judge of a chamber of commerce? The illegal LG committee was tinkered and controlled by Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

The violation of the law charges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Brückner-Hoffmann, Is this also not evident?.

Was the promotion of Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann a kind of recognition by the employer for the violation      

of the law and the arbitrariness of the LG committee?

         Where did Stockschlaeder-Nöll get the right from the reporter Brückner-Hoffmann to demand

 

                                    "to reject all applications of the plaintiff en bloc

                                    so that the judiciary does not get bogged down?

 

         Also not apparent? although presented very often (to be found in retent folder 2b o 271/01)

             Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges not perversion of the law?

4th

Question: why in the OLG decision October 6, 2020 (Ms. Barbian / Mr. Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) it

       has been suppressed that the legal representative (Nissen) of the defendant state (NRW) at the

         "hearing of the parties"on 12.11.2002 had confirmed that

       "the bank seizures operated by the FA-Mettmann were causal for the failure of the plaintiff's company?

             

       Why does the o.g. OLG Committee in decision 6.10.2020 write, that the plaintiff has not provided

         evidence of causality ??

       Is the recognition and confirmation of the NRW legal representative on November 12, 2002 for

       the Causality of the failure of the plaintiff's company due to the bank garnishments of the FA-

       Mettmann no proof? or is the confirmation from Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach

       in the judgment of May 11, 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01, or from Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser /

       Ms. Kirschner in the PKH decision of August 30, 2017, or in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017

       on Az 18 U 69/16 been?

       Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

5.

Question: why in the OLG decision October 6th, 2020 (Ms.Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) it has been

suppressed, that in the decision of November 26, 2012 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging /

Ms. Brecht, the alleged statute of limitations of the claimant's claims for damages according to BGB old version,

occurred on December 31, 2009? and 1.5 years later (on May 28, 2014) in the new LG decision, signed

Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag the alleged limitation of claims on June 30, 2010 according

to BGB new version occurred?

why was the previous decision of November 26th, 2012 not cancelled although it was contested?

Did Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll's opinion change depending on the direction of the flag?

 

And why did the accused OLG committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) not have written

a word, either in the PKH decision on August 30, 2017, or in judgment 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 on the LG

decisions with the different dates of the alleged statute of limitations?  no error visible either?

                  Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

6th

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Ms. Barbian/Roßwinkel/Ms. Skibbe) it has been

             suppressed that the exclusion request from December 18th, 2002 against Mrs. Stockschlaeder-

             Nöll only on January 17th, 2008 on the part of an illegal LG committee (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe /

             Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt, violation of Art. 101 GG and against § 75 GVG); the above Decision

              and committee composition is under attack.

              Nevertheless, the 11th Senate (Bünten & Co) and 18th Senate (Malsch & Co) remained silent

             about it.

            Also the accused OLG committee (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner) has the o.g. LG decision

            January 17th, 2008 and ignoring the incriminations against the Stockschlaeder-Nöll; was no

            legal been violated?

                 and Ms. Köstner-Plümpe, earned the promotion because of the legal violation?

               Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

7th

Question: why in the OLG decision October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) and others, it has been

suppressed, that the frequently requested annulment of the resolutions signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll since

December 18, 2002 until the legal validity of the theoretical discharge of the above Offender, not decided?

and even to this day to bury? Were the decisions of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, which were contested as unlawful,

not decisive for the statute of limitations between 2002 and 2009? or for the postponement of the procedure 2b o 271/01?

Why did the accused OLG committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) not write a word in

either the PKH decision on August 30, 2017 or in the judgment 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 about the delaying

of the LG decisions? that was not a mistake by the accused OLG fraudsters?

               Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges not perversion of justice?

8th.

Question: why in the OLG decision October 6th, 2020 (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel /Ms. Skibbe) it has

                 been suppressed, that on August 9, 2007 and on September 18, 2007 by a controlled and

                 unlawful LG committee (Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr. Galle, violation

               against § 75 GVG and against Art. 101 GG, and with Mr. Galle who is not responsible  

                   according to GVP !!) one has committed lawsuit fraud, claiming that the Court fees

                  they have been paying since Dec 2006 (without LG invoice!) allegedly not paid in full?

                 does the above mentioned LG committee Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle

                 did not commit any fraudulent proceedings ??

               if the decision would have been lifted, how would he have applied to the statute of

                 limitations and at the expense of the proceedings 2b o 271/01 worked ??

             the accused LG committee (Ms.Strupp-Müller/Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle) or Stockschlaeder-

               Nöll, or the OLG committee (Ms.Stein/Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in PKH decision

               of August 30, 2017 or in judgment 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 on fraud written about

                 8/9/2007 or 9/18/2007? was also for the new OLG committee (Ms. Barbian & Co), the

               material in the files, not relevant for the statute of limitations? and for the cost of the

               Procedure?

               (NB: In 2013 the court fees and RA fees were increased !!!)

               Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

9.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been suppressed

that the manipulation of the file contents ordered by Stockschlaeder-Nöll was committed by the cost officer

Mr. Habich on Aug. 29, 2007? Was the manipulation of files (in the files available and provable) of

mr. Habich, not a criminal offense? and no bending of the law ?? and not worth mentioning for the statute

of limitations and for the costs (of the proceedings that were delayed for a few years) ??        

is the suppression of evidence not perversion of justice?

 

10.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been

                   suppressed that from the 99 decisions of the Putsch club of the criminal 9 OLG judges of

                the 11th Senate, (3 * 14 =)42 resolutions served within a week (Febr. 2010) were

                accomplished facts against the plaintiff (for alleged failure to meet deadlines)?

                  Ms. Jungclaus then became Vice President of the LG-D'dorf !! did she deserve the title?

                 Is the suppression of evidence on the part of LG / OLG judges no perversion of the law?

11.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been

               suppressed, that for the LG order of 07/07/2014 to the OLG 18th Senate that "the Chamber

             on the statute of limitations insist ", neither in the PKH decision of August 30, 2017 nor in

               the judgment of October 18, 2017 anything written /or is commented ?? is something like

             that not relevant for the alleged statute of limitations theory of accused OLG committee

             (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) ??

            is the suppression of evidence for the statute of limitations not perversion of justice?

 

12th

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe), it has been

                   suppressed that on September 3, 2015 the OLG committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

                  on Az 18 W 1/13 the LG order of July 7th, 2014 with respect to the statute of limitations in

               litigation fraud by manipulation / change / addition the legal texts (e.g. § 209 BGB old

             version) had implemented ?? (the manipulation of the legal text is also from Ms. Stein / Ms.

             Glaeser / Anger was fully taken over in the decision of April 5, 2016 !!)

             Did the OLG committee not commit any perversion of rights with Ms. Glaeser

             on September 3, 2015?

           and the theory of the alleged extension for 6 months of § 209 BGB old version. ,

             is in BGB a.F. to find??? The plaintiff's answer was and still is: "Litigation fraud"

            Did the above Trial fraud from 3 September 2015 of the OLG committee Malsch /Ms. Glaeser

             / Anger non influenced the costs of the procedure? why the OLG committee (Ms.Stein / Ms.

               Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) is silent about it ?; Why is the LG order 7/7/2014 for the

           later alleged limitation of claims not relevant? why in the PKH decision on August 30, 2017

           and in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 nothing written??

           is the suppression of evidence for the statute of limitations not perversion of justice?

  

13.

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been

                 suppressed that Ms. Fuhr is not allowed to participate in the OLG proceedings 18 U 69/16?

                 Ms. Fuhr had in hers official statement according to § 44 ZPO from April 11, 2017 admitted

               that in the earlier Phase of the underlying proceedings was active. So according to § 41 No.

                 6 ZPO she was Excluded by law; Nevertheless, your colleagues (Ms. Stein / Unger /Ms.

                 Kirschner) have fraudsters Ms. Fuhr of the allegation of bias or the request for

                 exclusion rejected as unfounded on 07/19/2017. One more fraudster was required?

               The PKH application that was rejected on August 30, 2017 was signed by Ms. Fuhr and had

                to be cancelled after contestation. The alleged statute of limitations was ordered by LG and

                the accused (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) had to reach them in any case! ??

              The allegations in the PKH decision are interesting:

               August 30, 2017 signed Fr. Stein / Fr. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser , that the legal fraud (with the

               alleged statute of limitations of the claims) "IN THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF "took place;

               The above sentence (that the legal fraud for the alleged limitation of the

                Claims "in favour of the plaintiff" were made), can be found 3 times in the judgment

               18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16. The ladies liked that sentence so much!

               That the ladies (Stein & Co) are above the laws and fraudulent proceedings made in favour

               of the plaintiff is not relevant to the new OLG committee (Barbian & Co)?

                                       is the suppression of evidence not perversion of justice?

 

14th

Question: why in the OLG decision. October 6th, 2020 (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) it has been

                   suppressed that in the NZB the crimes of FA-Mettmann are described ?? and that Mrs.

                 Fuhr according to Law was excluded ?? and that the trial fraud of the OLG judges to Az

                 18 U 69/16 was also displayed there (in NZB) in the shortest and most decent way?

                 Why do the eloquent BGH judges have no exonerating word written for the OLG / LG

               litigation cheaters or for the crimes of FA-Mettmann, but with only about 5 lines rejected

                the NZB and then the complaint? Is everything not relevant for the OLG committee?

                           is the suppression of evidence not perversion of justice?

 

15th

     If, the OLG judges accused of litigation fraud / perversion of the law to Az 18 U 69/16

     of the 18th civil senate (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) would not be

       burdened, why are then with the decision of August 18, 2020 by the same OLG committee

     (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) excluded from the Senate? Why is no official statement!

     from the accused or excluded judges? NB: Their removal from the OLG-18. Senate was only

     achieved on the basis of the evidence provided of the fraudulent proceedings;

     That what the panel (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) writes in the new resolution of

     October 6, 2020, is only for Avoidance of further dire consequences for the process fraudsters

       (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner), a homage to the judges' famous

     "solidarity".

     Therefore what was written by Barbian & Co is contested as inaccurate

 

16.

The new OLG committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) claims in the decision of 6. Oct. 2020

Az 18 W 74/19, page 3, last 2 lines, and continued in page 4, lines 1 to 8 inclusive, that:

 

"The applicant has not presented any facts that would make an official liability claim in accordance

with § 839 BGB in conjunction with Art. 34 GG due to the perversion of the judges Stein, Fuhr, Glaeser, Kirschner

appear even rudimentary also judge - if a judgment in a legal matter is his official duty, he is only responsible

for the resulting damage according to § 839 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BGB if the breach of duty consists of a criminal offense.

in particular the perversion of the law asserted by the applicant, there are no indications ".

 

Whether the accused OLG judges (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) have committed

criminal offenses, the OLG committee that is decisive here will find answers, among other things from page 8

of the application from August 19, 2019

 

in chapter: The multiple fraud of the OLG judges Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner;

on page 10: The role of the criminal Ms. Glaeser on September 27, 2017 and October 18, 2017.

in page 14: intent to harm

as in

the supplement of Sept. 2, 2019 of the PKH application of August 19, 2019 for Az 2b o 145/19

from page 3 to page 10.

The description is detailed there and not contradicted. The chapters have titles such as:

 

1. ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE BGB (old version)
2. EVIDENCE IN THE UNCONDITIONAL CLAIM dated 5/02/2001
3. The connection and the separation of the 2 procedures Az 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01,

       the secret Application to initiate supervision proceedings; the decision to take evidence of

     November 28, 2000 and the legal consequences according to BGB old version to the interruption

     of the statute of limitations of the related proceedings

2. The application from March 2000 for support, and the rejection of 2.1.2002 by AG-Essen; Legal

   consequences on the interruption of the statute of limitations and then on the suspension of  

     the statute of limitations

18. The cap in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017 of the illegal education of decisive LG bodies

   as well as the theatrical homage of the BVerfG and BGH case law on Art. 101 and Art. 103 GG

   (see definition of terms in Thomas Fischer StGB "before § 13, RNr 1")

 

The general blah-blah about "bending the right" (page 4, sentence 2, of the OLG decision 6.10.2020)

doesn't convince anyone, and neither does the BGH judge. It will be, focusing on interruption

the statute of limitations according to BGB old version, contested with the following;

The contested OLG decision. October 6, 2020 must be cancelled.

    

5. The unconditional official liability suit of 5.2.2001 is from the LG / OLG and in all resolutions

   or LG judgment of May 11, 2016 and in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 according to BGB

   old version recognized / undisputed.

 

1. The FG lawsuits won, forced the FA-Mettmann to reimburse (1999-2002, 2006) the

   much-paid tax; According to BGB old version, the reimbursements the statute of limitations

     is interrupted.

     The OLG committees (Ms. Stein /Ms. Fuhr /Ms. Glaeser /Ms. Kirschner) or (Ms. Barbian /

     Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) don't write anything about it.

     Why ? Are the files too heavy? is the topic not relevant either?

 

1. The FG lawsuit, which ended in 2006 with "settlement" and reimbursement, has,

     according to BGB old version, the statute of limitations interrupted.

       The following from Palandt BGB a.F. with indication of the §, RNr and page

       > Interruption of the statute of limitations by acknowledgment (e.g. a FG judgment

         or tax refund or payment after a FG judgment has become final)

         BGB § 208 margin nos. 1-4, p. 198

       > The FA refunded tax in June 2000 and May 2001; the payment continues

      a new limitation period. Acknowledgment = business-like act

       e.g. Payment or set-off against undisputed claims

     > The OLG committees (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner) are deliberately silent on the subject

      on August 30, 2017 / October 18, 2017 and (Barbian / Roßwinkel / Skibbe) on October 6, 2017;

  

1. The accused OLG judges Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner recognize that the PKH application

    of February 5, 2001 already served on the defendant on February 20, 2002 before the beginning

     of 2002 is; However, they are silent about the interruption of the limitation period / suspension

       according to BGB old version.

     (This also applies in relation to § 209 BGB new version) The omission is also a criminal offense

     according to the StGB !!

  

1. For the lawsuit dated February 5, 2001, Sections of the BGB (old version) therefore apply;

   The consequence is that the period during which the limitation period is suspended, is not

   included in the limitation period.

 

While only in page 22, line 20 counted from above, page 23 last line, and in page 25, paragraph 3,

of the judgment 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 (version 30 pages) the interruption of the statute of limitations

is openly confirmed , the OLG committee Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner tries on all other pages

to convince the reader that no interruption of the statute of limitations would have occurred.

(See also the assertion in OLG judgment 18.10.17 (e.g. p. 23, version with 29 pages) about PKH application

from 5.2.2001, point a; or

about loss of subsidy, page 22 ff item 4 (verse 29 pages); About pension entitlement page 27, point 6

on compensation for pain and suffering, page 27, point 5. The goal is always the same to achieve the statute

of limitations. The "attempt" is also a criminal offense, punished according to the StGB with 1 to 5 years

imprisonment.

               is the suppression of evidence on the part of OLG judges not perversion of justice?

 

17th

It is submitted to the written submission on September 2, 2019 to Az OLG-Az 18 W 26/19 (LG-

D´dorf 2b o 233/18 PKH for declaratory action regarding expenses that have become useless

(= NGA) in conjunction with 2b o 271/01) because the judges do not want to search in other case files.

   

 

     C1. Excerpts from the OLG decision of August 30, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser

               Az 18 U 69/16

 

     C2. The Committee (Ms. Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner), explain on page 22, line 17ff, judgment of

           October 18, 2017, Az 18 U 69/16, version 29 pages, the validity and applicability of the BGB

           old version. (§ 211),

             that

                           "The three-year limitation period therefore began after the legally binding conclusion

                           (cf. § 211 BGB old version) of these output tax assessments from the 80 years

                           to run the relevant proceedings again before the Finance Court in Düsseldorf.

 

       On page 6, PKH decision 30.8.2017 (Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) Az 18 W 69/16 the reader will find

     the above Sentence in the following form

       ("the three-year limitation period therefore began after a legally binding conclusion

     (cf. § 211 BGB old version) to run the proceedings before the Düsseldorf Finance Court again ")

 

           The committee commits the "multiple litigation fraud" in the last 3.5 lines of the above

           Paragraph (page 22, judgment version 29 pages), as well as in PKH decision 30.8.17, Az

           18 U 69/16 Page 6 (Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) in identical form; in both cases (decision /

           judgment) the following:

 

         "In favor of the plaintiff, the Senate has, as in previous decisions, for this period up to

           Legal force of six months, so that through the legal action before the tax court

         The interruption of the statute of limitations triggered ended on 06/30/2000 at the latest. "

 

         From the above Lines result that

1. a) an interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG proceedings (due to the primary

             Legal protection) has occurred and

1. b) according to lines 17 ff, p. 22, the 3-year BGB limitation period has started again.
2. c) the 18th Senate also committed the fraud proven below in "previous resolutions"
3. d) belittling the fraudulent proceedings with the 6 months extension as "in favor of the plaintiff"
4.    e) the legal force (the interruption of the limitation period) six (6) months after delivery of the

           FG ruling extended (and referred to as in favour of the plaintiff)

 

   Under the above "Point c" ("earlier decisions") is the "fraud of Ms. Glaeser" in the decision

   to Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) from 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaser / Anger meant,

   who in the next lines are analyzed / commented on.

 

   The play on words with the terms "limitation ", "limitation term", "limitation period interruption"

   of the offenders (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) about the mix-up and then used the wrong

   one in order to achieve the result of the alleged "limitation of claims" is provable;

   as follows:

  

"The FG proceedings have interrupted the statute of limitations (primary legal protection) and this

   Interruption of the statute of limitations because of the FG proceedings (i.e. because of the primary

   legal protection) ended one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last ?!) FG judgment"

  

   (The reader will find the 6 month extension first on page 7, OLG decision 3.9.2015,

   Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

 

The OLG committee adds the 6 months in order to reach the process fraud by means of deception

 

   Now, based on the data of the OLG-PKH decision 30.8.17 in page 6, paragraph 2, as well as in

   OLG judgment October 18, 2017, page 22, version 29 pages, the last FG judgment (allegedly !!)

   pronnunced on November 24, 1999

     it follows that:

   Assuming that the FG judgment was served at the beginning of January 2000, took (due to the

   primary legal protection) the triggered interruption of the primary statute of limitations until the

   beginning February 2000 (legal deadline one month for the appeal at the BFH !! and not 6

   months).

 

       After that i.e. from the beginning of February 2000 there is a statutory 3-year limitation period

       (according to BGB!) started to run for the filing of the official liability suit.

       (as confirmed by OLG-PKH decision on August 30, 2017, page 6 in line 1, paragraph 2!)

       The end of this statutory limitation period according to the BGB would be 3 years later

       i.e. occurred in February 2003 (if you don't take into account the old version of the BGB!)

 

     The OLG committee, however, claims that the interruption of the (BGB) "limitation period"

     on "06/30/2000" ended, without specifying that the period of limitation was interrupted

     of primary legal protection (in January 2000) ended, and thereafter the 3 year limitation period

     of the BGB old version has started to run (as already confirmed; see above).

    

   The new OLG committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel/Skibbe) supports the massive fraud with the

   above Understood

 

     The offense is thus completed and the offense is revealed in the OLG-PKH decision on August 30,

     2017 ( Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) also in page 6, paragraph 3, in point d) where it states that the

     limitation period of 3 years according to BGB old version Section 211 occurred on "June 30, 2000

     at the latest on July 31, 2006".

 

     That, neither on "6/30/2000" nor on "7/31/2006" does the 3 year (BGB) limitation period (the

     February 2000 started to run!) Ended on "30.6.2000" is only the result of the planned /

     executed "trial fraud of women". The same can be said for Ms. Barbian & Co

 

The trio (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) intentionally avoided (at the most important point) to

       write that the 3-year limitation period according to the German Civil Code (BGB) began to run in  

       February 2000.

 

       By suppressing and then using the word "limitation period interruption" (from

       the primary legal protection !!) the trio misled the reader, and thus the wrong result

       reached i.e. that the 3 year (BGB) limitation period on June 30th, 2000 (!?), or at the latest (!?) on

       July 31, 2006 would have expired.

       The same reproach can be said for the new committee Ms. Barbian / Skibbe & Co

     In addition, the committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser), both in resolution 30.8.2017 and

     also in the whole OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) on

     Az 18 U 69/16 not credibly explains how the date 7/31/2006 results.

         It is undoubtedly a criminal offense.

 

     The 3d paragr. , Page 6, point d, of the OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017, and in page 23,

     line 1, 29-page version of the judgment, ends with an enigmatic date "7/31/2006"

     the arbitrariness of the committee and the "fraudulent proceedings" proves what the committee

     does in each case enforce the absurd "statute of limitations".

     The same reproach can be made for Ms. Barbian & Co

     According to the StGB, this is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years.

       This is no trivial matter.

 

   The date "7/31/2006", which fell with the parachute of Ms. Glaeser, will serve the committee

     later for other criminal conclusions and "the fraud is served in favour of the plaintiff"

     The ladies (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) stand obviously above the laws and

     can extend or shorten the statutory monthly period arbitrarily as desired.

 

C3. The distortion of the facts committed in page 7 of the PKH decision of August 30, 2017

       serves the o.g. Panel , i.e. enforce the statute of limitations for claims for damages and

       to "cap" the crimes of FA-Mettmann (BANK SEIZURES)

 

     In the entire OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr /

     Ms. Glaeser) and in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (i.e. regarding both versions), and in

     the OLG decision 16.9.2019, Az 18 W 26/19, nowhere a word written about the complaint /

   reminder that has been raised, is that the bank seizures from 1986-1989 have not yet been lifted,

   although three-Head of department at FA-Mettmann had applied twice for cancellation.

     The head of the swamp was against it. Were the bank seizures and the corresponding case law

         of the BGH (shown here below) not relevant for the process fraudsters ???

 

           "As long as the damaging intervention lasts, the statute of limitations cannot start

                 the BGH decided (which still applies today) ".

 

      If the trio with the 2 offenders (from earlier proceedings, Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser)

      had reported o.g. facts in the initial report of facts, then the PKH applied for (08/30/2017 and

     16.9.2019) and on 18.10.2017 in the judgment on 18 U 69/16 (signed Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner)

     would have agreed to the compensation.

     The new OLG committee Ms. Barbian & Co is silent about this point.

     So they wanted to enforce the "appointed statute of limitations" in any case, so the bank

     seizures and the application of the 3 department heads kept silent and thus the facts

   distorted / manipulated as they were comfortable. This is also punishable by § 339 StGB.

               is the suppression of evidence on the part of OLG judges not perversion of justice?

 

18. Some things about the case of Ms. Glaeser

 

1. She is in the OLG-18. Civil Senate entered around March 2015, and signed the Decision,

       in which the committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) the criminal "process fraud"

       committed.

     She proves which criminal instincts Fr. Glaeser possessed / owns in the resolutions of 3.9.2015

     to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14.

 

The following facts are noticeable in this decision of September 3, 2015, Az 18 W 1/13:

 

1. all events that took place in the period 2000-2003 and for the question of the statute of limitations

             were relevant, are kept secret by the committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger); e.g. about

1. Connection in March 2001 u. Separation in November 2001 of the 2 proceedings 2b o 118/99 and

             2b o 271/01,

III. or about the secret motions of March 2000 from Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr to the AG meal

2. or via the AG-Essen resolution on 2.1.2002, rejection by the supervisor with reservation of

           consent

1. or about the final clarification of the plaintiff's litigation capability on January 23, 2003,
2. or about the decision to take evidence of November 28, 2000 (Tannert / Fuhr / Schumacher)

           which was not issued until 11/29/2001 is cancelled by another chamber occupation.

VII. or on the exclusion of Ms. Fuhr (according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO or according to § 48 ZPO)

             in further decisions requests to Az 2b o 271/01 to participate

VIII. or about the illegality of the composition of the LG bodies (e.g. 04/04/2003, 11/05/2005,

           March 16, 2011)

1. or about the consequences of the statute of limitations of the requests for bias against the LG

          judges (December 18th, 2002 Stockschlaeder-Nöll, May 5th, 2003 against Strupp-Müller,

           September 21st, 2010 against Ms. Hoffmann)

1. or about the consequences of the fraudulent proceedings on August 9, 2007 and September 18,

          2007 by Strupp-Müller /Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle and the litigation fraud of August 29, 2007

         of the cost officer (Mr. Habich)

1. or about the repayments of the FA-Mettmann to the plaintiff in the years 1999-2000-2001-

    (The repayment after the COMPARISON 15.12.2006 is valued differently by the LG / OLG !!)

 

Likewise, not a word is written in the comment section about the effects of bank seizures, although

the OLG ruling on September 3, 2015 (on immediate complaint against LG rulings with PKH rejection)

counts on page 5, line 7 from below, the "unlawful seizures" mentioned will;

 

There is no word in any LG / OLG decision or LG / OLG judgment about the applications

of the three department heads of the FA-Mettmann to lift the bank seizures altogether.

Suppression of essential evidence is a criminal offense that must be punished.

 

Also in the OLG decision 3.9.2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) it is argued that the claimant's

claims for damages "were statute barred on July 31, 2006" (page 9, line 7 counted from above),

because the "lawsuit "was only delivered in September 2010 and the full payment of the court fees

in December 2006 could no longer change the statute of limitations that had already occurred.

 

                          The aim of the OLG group (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) is obvious:

                Statute of limitations before full court fee payment takes effect in Dec. 2006

 

In order to get to the absurd result, the above mentioned Body arbitrarily manipulated / supplemented

the legal texts of the BGB old version (e.g. § 209) with 6 months supplement / extension of the period

of limitation interruption after delivery of the last FG judgment

(see page 6, paragraph 2, line 10 counted from above, or page 7, line 3 counted from above).

 

The arbitrary change / manipulation of the text of the law is a serious criminal offense

which is punished with at least 5 years imprisonment according to the StGB.

 

After the above-mentioned OLG decision of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger followed

on September 22nd, 2015 vehement hearing complaint and (approx. September 22nd, 2015) the

chairman Malsch is relieved of his position and sent into retirement. Mr. Anger was removed from

the 18th Senate around the end of the year, while Ms. Glaeser stayed with the 18th Senate and

committed further crimes.

To avoid repetition, see hearing notice on September 22, 2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 and supplements.

 

19th

Legal differences between the two OLG committees with the participation of Ms. Glaeser

(on 3.9.15 and 30.8.2017)

 

Below are some noticeable legal differences between the two OLG bodies on September 3, 2015

(Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) on Az 18 W 1/13 and 8/30/2017 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser)

to Az 18 U 69/16 shown (which also reveal the contribution of Ms. Stein to "litigation fraud").

 

In the decision of September 3, 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) it is stated that the

brief submitted on February 5, 2001 by a "lawsuit" or "petitions" (7) is reported seven times,

e.g.

> Page 2, line 10 counted from the bottom, about "Claims dated December 29, 2001";

> Page 2, lines 5-4 counted from the bottom, about "Claim 1 revised on August 13, 2004";

                             NB: the "claim 1" was filed with the claim of 5 February 2001;

> Page 3, line 20 counted from above "the lawsuit (pleadings of 5.2.2001 and 13.8.2004)

                           was delivered on September 13, 2010 ";

> Page 3, line 24 counted from above "The lawsuit dismissed"

                         (From which date the complaint is not specified !!), that is, the one from 5.2.2001 !!

> Page 5, line 9 counted from above, "Claim 1";

                             NB: the "claim 1" was filed with the claim of 5 February 2001;

> Page 8, point b) "Claim to II";

> Page 8, point c) "Claim to III"

 

So it is not written about applications in the PKH proceedings, but about "lawsuits" or "complaints".

In this respect, this is consistent with the submissions of the Advocate.

 

In the resolution of August 30, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser, on the other hand, only speaks

of "service of action" on page 7 and page 9, but otherwise only reports about MOTIONS; the term

"Lawsuit" or "petitions" of the decision of 3 September 2015 is deleted / not used !! Coincidence ??

 

Further serious differences relate to "the complaints drafted on December 29, 2001"

(according to the decision of 3 September 2015, page 2),

while in page 11, line 7 of the OLG decision of 30.8.2017 from a "payment action"

is reported, but the legal consequences of the interruption of the limitation period in both of the above

Decisions (3.9.15 and 30.8.17) withheld. The text in resolution 30.8.2017 is as follows:

 

"... revised application for legal aid received by the court on December 31, 2001

   dropped, u. limited to an action for payment and an application for a supplementary pension ".

 

Well, in the newly drafted complaint of December 29, 2001 of the RA is the alleged PKH application

dropped and filed a lawsuit for payment; on the first page 2 times there was talk of a lawsuit and

on page 2 also 2 reports of a lawsuit.

In addition, this brief (December 29, 2001, which was received by the court on December 31, 2001) was

"made known" to the defendant On December 31, 2001, a claim for payment was received following

OLG confirmation

 

A lawsuit filed before January 1st, 2002 interrupts the statute of limitations.

 

Both, the LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) on May 11, 2016, as well as the OLG committees in

the two resolutions (3 September 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger), and on 30 August 2017

(Ms. Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) as well as in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Ms. Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner)

suppressed, in order to hide the legal consequences of the alleged limitation of claims.

 

The new OLG committee Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe suppressed in the decision 6.10.2020 on

OLG Az 18 W 74/19 (LG 2b o 145/19). Why?  Coincidence ??

 

All of the above LG / OLG bodies claim that the limitation period was not interrupted before 1.1.2002.

This is the "process fraud of all those accused".

It is a "crime" punished with 5 years imprisonment.

 

In the OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017, page 6, as well as in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017,

page 22 (version 29 pages), the manipulation / change of the legal text (§ 209) BGB old version reported that

the 6 month extension of the limitation period "IN THE FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT" takes place, during

in the decision of 3.9.2015 (Malsch & Co) the 6-month extension is not commented on page 7.

 

So the women (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) suddenly stand above the law and are allowed to

changed arbitrary the duration of the interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG judgments

"Extend or shorten in favour of one party", and thus procure procedural advantages or disadvantages

for one party (and the BGH is silent about it !!).

This is punishable under Section 339 of the Criminal Code.

               is the suppression of evidence on the part of OLG judges not perversion of justice?

 

20th

     Another noticeable difference between the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 and the previous

       one LG decisions issued on November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014, as well as the OLG decision

       3.9.15 the reader finds the date of the end of the limitation period (after taking into account

     of the FG agreement on December 15, 2006, or ignoring the FG agreement of December 15,

     2006).

 

     In the LG decision of November 26, 2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht) the

     termination of the limitation period according to BGB old version, determined on December 31,

     In the LG decision of May 28, 2014 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Frreitag) the

               termination of the limitation period according to BGB new version on June 30, 2010.

     In the OLG decision of September 3, 2015, the end of the limitation period according to the old

            version of the German Civil Code (BGB) at the July 31, 2006.

     In the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Ms. Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) the end of the

             limitation period according to BGB new version on June 30th, 2000, at the latest (!?)

           July 31st, 2006.

    

For the OLG committee Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe in the decision 6.10.2020 page 6, let

         such noticeable differences do not recognize errors !!!. Why not ?

    

All of the above Decisions only show that the writers and the panels willfully deliberate the issue

      and falsified the legal situation to come to the conclusion that the claims were statute-barred.

 

In the 1st LG decision (dated November 26, 2012) the statute of limitations according to BGB old

         version, allegedly occurs on December 31, 2009,

         so before the service of the lawsuit, which only took place in September 2010.

In the 2nd LG decision (dated May 28, 2014) the statute of limitations according to BGB new  

         version, allegedly occurs on June 30, 2010,

         i.e. before the service was served in September 2010

In the 3rd OLG decision (of September 3, 2015) the statute of limitations according to BGB old

           version allegedly occurs on July 31, 2006,

           i.e. before the court fees were paid in full in Dec. 2006.

In the 4th OLG decision (of October 18, 2017) the statute of limitations according to BGB new

           version / BGB old version allegedly occurs on June 30th, 2000 (!!!),

          i.e. before the new statute of limitations comes into force (on January 1st, 2002)

 

As you can see, the disagreement of the LG / OLG bodies only concerns the date of the limitation

       period occurs, but the goal is always the same "LIMITATION". And everyone wants to be correct

         and accurate have decided!!! Who should do the above accused of believing what they write?

         The offenses are punished with more than 5 years imprisonment.

               is the suppression of evidence on the part of OLG judges not perversion of justice?

 

21st

         Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB and the endless confusion in the OLG decisions of

         3.9.2015, 30.8.2017, in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017, and OLG decision of. October 6, 2020

  

         As the opinions of the 4 above OLG committees (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger), (Stein / Fuhr /

         Glaeser), (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) and (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) in terms of

         the application of Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB diverge is further evidence that all bodies by means of

         Litigation fraud and erroneous allegations to right the "statute of limitations" of the claims

           try finished.

 

       In the OLG decision of 3 September 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) on page 7, the

         application is of Art. 229, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 3 of the EGBGB confirmed, but in the

         resolution of 30.8.2017, in point 3, page 8 claims the OLG committee (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser)

         that Art. 229 § 6 Abs. 4 EGBGB would be correct, and it is on page 24 (version 29 pages) in the

         OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Stein / Glaeser /Kirschner) disputed that there is a case

         where Art. 229 § 6 Paragraph 3 applies.

        

     Ms. Glaeser sits on the three committees, who obviously have different opinions

         who signed on September 3, 2015 and October 18, 2017, thinks the least.

       She signs everything that is presented to her so that salaries and pensions are secured.

 

   In page 6 of the OLG decision. v. October 6, 2020, Az 18 W 74/19, signed Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel

  /Ms. Skibbe will generally denied, that the previous OLG bodies have an elementary violation

       of the law committed, but without assessing the facts or without providing concrete evidence.

 

22nd

     Nothing writes about the compensation for pain and suffering, the new OLG committee

   (Ms. Barbian /Roßwinkel / Fr. Skibbe), although the topic belongs to Az 18 W 74/19 (2b o 145/19).

       Both, in resolution 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) and

       in the decision 30.8.2017, Az 18 W 69/16, (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) and in the

       OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Kirschner)

       incorrect allegations that represent criminal offenses and justify elementary legal violations or

       criminal offenses.

       The first instance asserted compensation for pain and suffering was not the subject

       of the proceedings to LG Düsseldorf Az 2b o 268/01 - OLG Düsseldorf Az 18 U 223/11 - like the

       files of 2b o 268/01 Prove. To say the opposite is a deliberate, punishable lie.

 

       The subject of Az 2b o 268/01 were claims from lost profits and

       a claim for damages due to a lost order (AVT).

 

       In addition, in the opinion of the LG Düsseldorf, the claim for compensation for pain and

         suffering was no longer applicable

       so that no decision has been made about it that would have become final.

       . The criminal offense through violation of Art. 103 GG is obvious.

 

       In addition, the committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) arbitrarily claims on page 10,

       Point a, of the resolution on August 30, 2017, that the compensation claims (which in 30 years

       would be statute-barred !!!) already on July 31, 2006 (!!) in addition, in Az 18 W 26/19

       Page 5, on the committed "process fraud" with the manipulation of the legal text § 209

         BGB old version The reference to litigation fraud is convincing about the intention to harm the

         plaintiff

 

       Almost identical to the above, the reader will also find this topic in the OLG judgment on

         October 18, 2017,Az 18 U 69/16, in page 27 (version 29 pages), to which reference is made,

       with which the continuation of litigation fraud is proven and the resumption of 2b o 271/01 is

       justified.

23

   The new committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) will not discuss the statutory pension

   In the decision of October 6, 2020, nothing was written on Az 18 W 74/19 (2b o 145/19); only on

   page 7 of the above it is generally alleged that there is a "suppression" of evidence and

     infringement, merely alleged by the plaintiff. It is referred to the brief on August 19, 2019

     (2b o 145/19) with the 16 Pages and also on the additional evidence (in the FG letter of November

   12, 1999 signed Stuffer) referred; The above FG letter is dated 11/12/1999 before the FG judgment

   of 11/24/1999. In this respect, no statute of limitations should have occurred.

  

   The facts are set out below that have not been considered by any LG / OLG committee.

    

   In the OLG decision of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13, the allegedly missing need for legal protection

     brought up by the plaintiff as an argument; also in the OLG decision 30.8.2017 page 11, and

     afterwards Mentioned in OLG judgment October 18, 2017, page 27, point 6 (version 29 pages)

 

     Regarding the claimant's pension entitlement, the OLG committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) 

                     in his decision of September 3, 2015 on page 8 writes:

 

                 “The complaint is unfounded for the reasons given by the LG.

The claim lacks the need for legal protection, since it is the subject of proceedings 2b O 118/99 -

                 in varying amounts but unchanged in terms of reason. "

 

   It is undisputed that in the claims of the action of August 13, 2004 to

   File number 2b o 118/99 no pension claims have been asserted,

     as the files of Az 2b o 118/99 prove.

   To assert the opposite is a punishable deliberate lie that justifies the crime.

 

             The plaintiff waived the application for a supplementary pension

             on the grounds in the application of June 21, 1999.

 

On the other hand, the need for legal protection for a statutory pension remains,

because the decisions on the PKH applications have not grown into material legal force.

 

This means that the claimant (without loss of rights) can submit pension applications

(for statutory or supplementary pension) and can justify them anew each time.

 

The pension application for Az 2b o 271/01 is for the first time a detailed pension calculation

- by his pension advisor. This calculation has never been objected to (cf. brief on Az 2b o 271/01

of July 12, 2012, page 118 ff.).

 

Further legal violations on the part of the OLG committee Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger are in the

Appeal from 08/18/2016 and is referred to in order to avoid redundancy.

 

24.

 

Alleged limitation on June 30th, 2000 at the latest on July 31st, 2006 !! ??

(OLG judgment October 18, 2017 signed Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner, page 23, version with 29 pages;

OLG-PKH negative decision of August 30, 2017 (signed Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) page 6, point d);

 

   How can a statute of limitations suddenly occur "at the latest" on July 31, 2006, neither

       Ms. Glaeser has explained in the resolution on Az 18 W 1/13 on September 3, 2015

     (signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger), yet the process fraudsters Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner

   in the judgment 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 set out. Also in the OLG-PKH negative decision

     signed Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser of August 30, 2017, Page 6, point d) has not been clarified how

     the statute of limitations suddenly occurred on July 31, 2006 !?

     About it i.e. an explanation for the alleged statute of limitations at the latest 31.7.2006 also

       provides not the rapporteur here.

     What kind of result is that with the parachute of Ms. Glaeser suddenly falls down ???

     The alleged errors of the rapporteur in decision 6.10.2020, page 5, Az 18 W 74/19 are

     here unforgivable and reveal the intent of the process fraudsters Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser /

     Kirschner, to spare from further criminal consequences.

     With the removal of the above Process fraudsters (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser / Kirschner) from the

     OLG-18.Civil Senate, but are they not yet punished under criminal law, i.d.S. they are not out of

     justice yet dismiss; That could still come.

 

25th

Section 209 of the old version of the German Civil Code (BGB), i.e. valid for the period up to the filing

of the official liability suit on February 5, 2001 does not provide for an extension of the limitation period

of 6 months. The new OLG committee claims the opposite in the sense of the process fraudsters.

That happens when you don't want to look.

 

         The manipulation to supplement the legal text (§ 209 BGB old version) originally has that

         Committee Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger on September 3, 2015 for Az 18 W 1/13

           for the period of limitation ordered to reach;

 

     That cost Malsch the job. Now comes the time of Mrs. Glaeser, the justice to leave.

       The rapporteur here on Az 18 W 74/19 also does not explain where the 6 months

       extention (in favour of the plaintiff !!!) of § 209 a.F. come?

 

       So litigation fraud in favour of the plaintiff?

 

     Why does a new start of the BGB statute of limitations of 3 years only start on July 1st, 2000

       and not after End of the statute of limitations for primary legal protection (the FG actions)

         i.e. not until 1.2.2000?

     There is also no context that could explain that "end of 2005" means the end of January 2005

       is meant; the hodgepodge in p. 5 u. 6 of the decision of October 6, 2020 is therefore rejected.

 

26th

For the application according to § 78b ZPO for the appointment of an EMERGENCY Advocate,

the OLG committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) on page 8 of the resolution of October 6, 2020,

writes only 9 words (including articles of nouns) to reject (the request).

                     "The prerequisites are allegedly not available".

The three-line paragraph on page 8 of the contested resolution for rejecting an emergency advocate

reveals the panel's fear of looking an emergency attorney in the eye.

However, the reader does not find out which requirements are missing.

The conditions mentioned by law and supplemented by the BGH are in the view of the plaintiff

fully fulfilled. In the absence of a specific indication of what is missing, the OLG decision must

October 6, 2020, next to all other contested resolutions are repealed

 

27.

Finally, the OLG committee remembers to explain on page 8 why the brief was August 19, 2019

has not been sent to the representative of the defendant country. The rejection of the delivery of the PKH

application, although according to the ZPO (to inhibit the statute of limitations) should have been made,

reveals the already decided overall rejection, so that the judiciary does not again pollute with the dirt made

by the judges and therefore does not have to be employed.

 

Epilogue

  

The new committee of the OLG-18th Senate (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) has with the lawsuit /

PKH More than 40 pieces of evidence received from August 19, 2019 to substantiate the fraud committed

by the LG / OLG judges to Az 18 U 69/16, 18 W 1/13, 2b o 271/01, and nevertheless it speaks in the decision

6.10.2020. Everything is so general and blanket that it could be applied to any other negative decision.

 

The panel tried just as many suppressions of facts or evidence, several circumnavigations, as well as many

confusions of facts with incorrect law no, in order to spare the fraudsters from further criminal consequences.

 

28.

             The § 321a ZPO and summary

 

The rejection on the part of the OLG-D'dorf of the statute of limitations information from the plaintiff for

the delivery of the PKH / lawsuit from August 19, 2019, Az 2b o 145/19, to the defendant's representative

constitutes a serious violation of the right to be heard.

 

The complaint to be heard according to § 321a ZPO must be communicated to the other side and given

the opportunity to comment. (Zöller, ZPO § 321a RNr 15, edition 2018)

 

The new OLG committee (Ms. Barbian / Roßwinkel / Ms. Skibbe) has the right to hear the plaintiff

the evident misconduct of the facts seriously violated, as demonstrated here above

 

The OLG committee made a blatantly wrong decision in view of the large number of legal violations

reported (litigation fraud).

 

In addition, numerous offers of evidence (and evidence) for the fraudulent proceedings of the LG /

OLG judges were overlooked both in the appeal (OLG-D'dorf Az 18 U 69/16) and in proceedings 2b o 145/19.

 

The party arguments are largely ignored;

this means a significant violation of the right to be heard.

 

What is essential, however, is the fact that, without the legal infractions of the accused OLG judges,

the original process (2b o 271/01) and the underlying proceedings

(2b o 145/19) guaranteed complete success.

 

The simplifications mentioned in the BGH decision (NJW 2016, 2690) due to the obvious significance

of the hearing injuries have not been taken into account by the new body.

 

The court will be informed that the proceedings will be resumed soon (18 U 69/16) or

of procedure 2b o 145/19.

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros