He explains his Patents and his Processes against Judges of court of
appeal and 
against Judges of district court – of Düsseldorf - Germany

Dr.-Ing. Th. SARTOROS

 

DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501

WIRD ZUM VERKAUF ANGEBOTEN, PREIS: 265.000,-- € + 19% MWSt

PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" TO SELL DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501

PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen-Kettwig

Dec. 05, 2019

 

in advance by fax 0211-4971-548

Court of Appeal Düsseldorf

18.Zivilsenat

Mrs. Stein personally

Cecilien avenue 3

40474 Dusseldorf

 

Re: Info to Mrs. Stein that she leads in the applicant's website the list of "Offenders in Judge's Garb"

       : Recommendation to disappear from the plaintiff's horizon

 

Mrs. Martina Stein,

 

You took over the chairmanship of the 18th Civil Senate of the court of appeal-Düsseldorf in Sept. 2015,

shortly after your predecessor, Volker Malsch, due to severe legal inflection on 3 September 2015 and

with the shame of trial fraud (e.g. manipulation of legal texts e.g. § 209 BGB a.F.) to

Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) dismissed from his position and sent into retirement.

 

Amazing at your first appearance was that you the 2 assistants (Mrs. Glaeser and Mr. Anger) to above

mentioned Process fraud by Volker Malsch on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, accepted in your team and kept,

although this you would have to decline and initiate a new right-faithful course. The expectations have

unfortunately been disappointed.

 

Surprisingly, it was that you had been happy to welcome that Mrs. Fuhr from 1.1.2017 in the

18th Senate (to strengthen the process fraudster Mrs. Glaeser) will be active. That was a warning sign.

What is subsequently signed by you and the other offenders proves that you deliberately and knowingly

endorsed the already long - planned and from the 2b Civil Chamber of the regional court of

Düsseldorf last with no-remedy decision to Az 2b o 271/01 on 7/7/2014 ordered process fraud (with reason,

the "statute of limitations" of the damage claims of the engineer & inventor), co-designed and supported.

(see resolution of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser,

and judgment on Az 18 U 69/16 dated 18.10.2017 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner).

 

Amazing was that you have rejected my bias applications against the criminals Mrs. Glaeser and Mrs. Fuhr

each time as unfounded or inadmissible, although you knew what Mrs. Glaeser with Mr. Malsch and Mr. Anger

on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) for a serious process fraud executed.

The process frauds did not seem important to you.

 

You also knew that against Mrs. Fuhr for infringement of the law (due

Last modified on Friday, 06 December 2019 13:44

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 Laddringsweg 15

 45219 Essen-Kettwig

  Oct. 13, 2019

 

in advance by fax 0211-4971-548

Court of appeal of Düsseldorf

(OLG) 18.Civil-Senate

Mrs. Glaeser personally

Cecilien avenue 3

40474 Dusseldorf

 

Re: Info to Mrs. Glaeser that she is entitled as "Criminal" on the undersigned's website.

     : Call for exhaustion; if she does not dare, she must give the gown back to the judiciary

 

Mrs. Glaeser

You had been appointed rapporteur for the signer's cases since March 2015 (when Volker Malsch

was the chairman of the 18th Civil Senate) and in addition to the committed "process fraud" dated 3.9.2015

to Az 18 W 1/13,also several heavy file-manipulations are done at your time; e.g. the "disappearance from

the file 2b o 271/01 of the order of publication to the defendant of the recast claims filed to the court on

29.12.2001"; Also at your time the "disappearance from the file 2b o 271/01 of the reference of 9.9.2015 the

2b chamber to the advocate Minnerop" happened.

 

What content had the LG reference is not known; but brought in connection with the content of the letter of 14.9.2015

of the advocate St. Minnerop to LG-Az 2b o 271/01 one could already suspect that the 2b chamber

(= Stockschlaeder-Nöllhas turned on an accomplice to defame the plaintiff.

(see answer of the undersigned of 11th Oct. 2015 to St. Minnerop, Az 2b o 271/01)

 

It is also assumed that you have read i.a. the "Hearings" of 27.9.2019 to Az 18 W 26/19 (LG-Düsseldorf

Az 2b o 233/18), concerning the useless expenses for the realization of the patents in connection with

LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271 / 01 and OLG-Az 18 U 69/16).

 

Several pages of the 14 page long "Hearings" detail your crimes, and this leads to the conclusion that you are

entitled to legal inflection or process fraud to OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), and together

with Fr. Fuhr,have deliberately executed.

 

The evidence of your process fraud - committed in the OLG Düsseldorf decision of 30 Aug. 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16

(signed Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser), which were then adopted in the OLG judgment of 18/10/2017, are unshakable,

i.e. that you along with Fr. Fuhr the alleged limitation of the Claims for damages have rediscovered and used

on "30.6.2000" or "at the latest on 31.7.2006";

 

The Process frauds

Last modified on Sunday, 13 October 2019 19:23

                                            The chalenge to Mrs Fuhr, judge of Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen-Kettwig

October 10, 2019

 

in advance by fax 0211-4971-548

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf

18.Zivilsenat

Mrs. Fuhr personally

Cecilien avenue 3

40474 Dusseldorf

 

Re: Information to Mrs. Fuhr, that in the website of the undersigned, she is titled as "Criminal".

     : Summoning for invalidation; if she does not dare, she must give the gown back to the judiciary

 

Mrs. Fuhr

 

it is assumed that you will hear the same from censure dated 27.9.2019 to Az 18 W 26/19 (LG-Düsseldorf

Az 2b o 233/18, Procedure concerning useless expenses for the realization Patents

in connection with LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 and OLG-Az 18 U 69/16).

 

In several pages of the 14-page long list of censure, your crimes are described in detail,

and this leads to the conclusion that, you have made deliberately the legal infractions or

the process frauds to OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), together with Mrs. Glaeser.

 

The evidence for your crimes - committed in the OLG Düsseldorf decision of 30 Aug. 2017

to Az 18 U 69/16 (signed Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser), which were then adopted in the OLG judgment

of 18/10/2017, are unshakable, i.e. that you with Mrs. Glaeser invented the alleged limitation

of the claims for damages on "30.6.2000" or "at the latest on 31.7.2006" and

supported it with your signature. That was against the law, an attack from inside.

 

Your process fraud (in the years 2000, 2001, 2017, 2018, 2019) in connection with the covering

of the crimes of the Revenue Office of city Mettmann in the years 1979 - 2006 against the

engineer & inventor, appear in several pleadings of the undersigned to the court; in it you are

as biased or rejected as a biased judge of the OLG.

 

An official liability action of 13.11.2003 and a declaratory action in 2008 still burden

on you. The terms used ultimately show how hard your process fraud weigh.

 

Although the law recognizes simple grounds of bias for the refusal of the judge,

the signatory goes accordingly to the criminal code and accuses you of being a "criminal",

i.e. one step higher, because of "crimes" in sense

Last modified on Thursday, 10 October 2019 19:02

 

The following translation from German to english is made from Google-translation-programm

There is possible that exist errors of translation. The original on German Language is authentical

and has priority. Please contact Dr. Sartoros if you find errors.

 

I-18 U 69/16                                                                                   announced on 18.10.2017

 2b o 271/01

LG Düsseldorf

                                                     OBERLANDESGERICHT DÜSSELDORF

                                                          IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

                                                                      JUDGMENT

 

In the litigation

 

of Dr. Ing. Theodore Sartoros, Laddringsweg 15, 45219 Essen,

 

Plaintiff and Appellant,

 

Represented by: Advocats-office .........

 

against

 

the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, legally represented by the Minister of Finance of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, this represented by the supervision of revenue offices North Rhine-Westphalia, this represented by the President of the supervision of tax offices, Department

 

Cologne, Riehler Platz 2, 50668 Köln, country complained and appealed,

Procurator: | ........ Lawyers Partnership mbB

 

the 18th Civil Senate of the Court of appeal Düsseldorf has the oral proceedings from the  

by the chairwoman judge at the Court of appeal Düsseldorf Mrs Stein, the judge at the Court of appeal Düsseldorf Mrs. Glaeser and the judge at the Court of appeal Düsseldorf Mrs Kirschner

 

recognized for right:

 

The Appellant's Appeal Against the Judgment of the 2b Civil Division of the Land

Düsseldorf of 11.05.2016 (2b O 271/01) is hereby approved as rejected

that the judgment of default of the chamber of 16.03.2011 (not 26.03.2011)

is maintained.

 

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

 

This and the judgment under appeal are provisionally enforceable.

 

The plaintiff remains free to avert the enforcement of both judgments against security in the amount of 110% of the enforceable amounts, unless the defendant country provides security before enforcement 110% of the amount to be enforced.

 

The revision is not permitted.

 

                                                       REASONS

 

                                                             I.

 

The plaintiff seeks from the defendant country by way of official liability it means . Damages and compensation due to incorrect tax determination in the period 1979 to 1988 as a result of an external audit of the tax office Mettmann in 1984 and subsequent foreclosure measures. The plaintiff therefore led

Last modified on Saturday, 06 October 2018 19:38
BGH III ZR 332 17 NZB Entscheidung v 24.5.2018 S. 1

 

 

This comment is published on German and english, into the Germanpage, look there.

 

BGH (Supreme Federal Court of Justice)

DECISION of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17

concerning the NZB of 19.3.2018

against OLG-Düsseldorf Judgment 18.10.2017

Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01

 

The BGH-III Senate has its own jurisdiction ignored when passing the resolution

to III ZR 332/17 of 24 May 2018 ( about Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf Az 18 U 69/16,

LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) :

 

 Here are only two BGH decisions mentioned, the BGH III civil Senate (Mr. Herrmann /Mr. Seiters /Mr. Reiter /Mrs Liebert / Mrs Böttcher) on May 24, 2018 ignored, at the adoption of the decision

on Az III ZR 332/17 (regarding the (NZB=) non-admission complaint against OLG-Düsseldorf decision Az 18 U 69/16 from 18.10.2018 , LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01), thus proving that it is prepared to take political decisions (and able to implement the received order) if the legal cases bring legal action for liability claims for damages amounting to millions (in €).

 

 The first decision of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) is several times repeated, both, as well as in the LG-Düsseldorf (Az 2b o 271/01) process and OLG-Düsseldorf (18 U 69/16) as well as in the non-admission complaint of 19 March 2018 to BGH Az III ZR 332/17, and has the following (shortened) content:

  

"As long as the harmful interference lasts, the limitation period cannot begin"

 

It is repeatedly recounted and evidence has been provided that the (mentally ill) bank seizure on part of FA-Mettmann for alleged tax evasion of the suitors, since 1986 or since 1989 still persist, and despite the repeated reminiscences of the complaint and the repeal requests of 3 heads of the FA-Mettmann from 1988 and 1989 bank seizures are still not repealed.

 

 The damaging procedure is still going on, and according to BGH case law, the limitation period can not begin.

Nevertheless, the OLG-Dusseldorf has found to Az 18 U 69/16, that the claims for damages and the claim for damages are time-barred.

 

Even the claim for damages, which would become statute-barred only after 30 years, is now barred after OLG judgment 18 U 69/16 of 18.10.2017. JUSTICE ???

 

The BGH-III civil-Senate (composition as above) has not responded to the arguments presented in the NZB, therefore the BGH decision of 24 May 2018 Az III

Last modified on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 20:10

Vorwort des Klägers

Der Leser erfahrt aus diesem Beitrag der RAe Schmitz-Witte & Collegen wie ein prozessunfähiger Rechtsanwalt (Plötzgen) die Aussicht auf Erfolg eines Amtshftungsverfahrens mit fehlerhaften und unbegründeten Anträgen vernichten kann, und wie die LG-Einzelrichterin Fr. Brecht die höhere Rechtsprechung umgeht um den Kläger für seine Internet-Veröffentlichungen zu bestrafen.

Über die Berufung mit dem angegebenen Az des OLG-D´dorf 24 U 131/15 ist noch nicht entschieden. Es folgt daher eine spätere Information 

 

Schmitz ∙ Witte & Collegen

Rechtsanwälte  ∙  Notar

 

                         

                                                                                                                                                              Schmitz ∙ Witte & Collegen ∙

                                                                                                                             Postfach 34 02 44 ∙ D - 45074 Essen


                                                                                                                                                                                       ESSEN
                                                                                                                     

Last modified on Wednesday, 02 December 2015 11:48

Visitors: Today 8 | Yesterday 21 | Week 191 | Month 622 | All 35556

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