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)
LG-ESSEN, Az 1 o 383/20, Translation on English of immediate complaint 14. May 2021 against Decision 27. Apr. 2021
Preface: why this article, now translated on English, appears on the website.
Who would like to be shown as an "important judge",
also dare a coup against the rightful chairman.
In this article the reader learns how he is treated by the local author
without to name him.
The action concerns the regional court of city Essen (=LG-Essen Az 1 o 383/20)
with background (III 5 Ws 579/19 of) the Higher Regional Court (OLG)
of the city Hamm.
Dr. Th. Sartoros
May 14, 2021
In advance by fax: 0201-803-2141
Essen District Court
Zweigert str. 52
Ref: Az 1 o 383/20; PKH dated 9. Dec. 2020 for a future official liability suit against NRW because of
the Perversion of rights according to § 339 StPO of the OLG Hamm judges Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling
/ Dr. Tamm for Az III- 5 Ws 579/19.
Relative to .: OLG-Hamm decision of January 30th, 2020 on Az III 5 Ws 579/19 signed Ms. Lange /
Mölling / Tamm on enforcement penal proceedings (= KEV) against LG Essen judges (Mr. Koß /
: Application of July 30, 2020 to repeal the OLG Hamm decision of January 30, 2020 because
the accused LG Essen judges did not comply with the law on the part of the Attorney General
: OLG-Hamm decision v. 8/11/2020 signed only Dr. Mölling / Dr. Tamm (without Ms. Lange's
: My letter from 9.9.2020; Forward the decision on August 11th, 2020 after Ms. Lange,
after your vacation
: My 2nd reminder from October 10th, 2020, the resolution August 11th, 2020 with the
signature of Mrs. Lange to be forwarded here
: LG-Essen Decision Apr. 27, 2021 (Rejection of the application for emergency lawyer signed
Schalla /Ms. S-D / Ostgathe received on May 6th. 2021
: LG-Essen Decision Apr. 27, 2021 (Rejection of PKH application signed by Schalla/Ms. S.-D./
Ostgathe, received on May 6, 2021
: LG-Essen cover letter 29.4.21 with annex the statement of the General public attorney-Hamm
of 22.4.21 received on May 7, 21
Here: immediate complaint against the LG-Essen decision of April 27, 2021 (rejection of the
application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE for the future public liability suit) signed Schalla /
Mrs. Schmitz-Dörnenburg (only Judge ) / Ostgathe; the decision is unrealistic or based on a
legal error; The Written text is not taken into account (violation of Art. 103 GG); insofar
unlawful, the attacked decision is repealed.
Ladies and Sirs,
An immediate complaint is hereby made against the above-mentioned decision, signed Schalla /
Ms Schmitz-Dörnernburg (judge without qualification for die regional court) / Ostgathe, dated
April 27, 2021 to Az 1 o 383/20 (rejection of the application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE);
It is requested that the resolution be revoked; the complaint is justified as follows:
The plaintiff is neither a lawyer nor a advocate; as a normal citizen he has submitted a memorandum
for a future one Public liability lawsuit, because of the judges' perversions, Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling /
Dr. Tamm, OLG-Hamm, and sent the draft complaint with the motions (of the future lawsuit).
So it was not an application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE for the legal aid requested. Especially
since the § 78b ZPO used on this side clearly refers to an action before the LG, where the Lawyer
is required. The emergency advocate would only have acted in the legal proceedings after the court
had assessed the chances of success of the legal action and, in the positive case, would appoint
an emergency attorney for the legal penal proceedings. At the regional court (= LG) there is an
The ordinary citizen is defined in regional court proceedings by the law (ZPO) as not capable of postulating.
However, the LG-Essen committee assumed a false assumption that the application for an
EMERGENCY Advocate had been made for the PKH procedure, and rejected the emergency attorney
for the PKH procedure. This is the body's legal error.
The wrong LG-assumption contradicts the meaning of this side-related § 78b ZPO and automatically
leads to the wrong result, i.e. the rejection of the emergency lawyer for the PKH procedure.
Therefore, the result is unrealistic and violating the law and the decision must be overturned.
In the opinion of the applicant (= ASt), the rejection of the application for an emergency lawyer
for the PKH procedure would also be unlawful if the court had taken into account and based on
§ 121 No. 2, No. 5 ZPO.
A reinterpretation of § 78b ZPO in § 121 ZPO would be possible, taking into account the
differences between the 2nd named §§, after asking the ASt. The LG-Essen committee
did not ask the ASt and rejected the complaint / PKH in suspicious haste.
Section 121 (2) ZPO concerns a procedure without compulsory RA, if representation by an RA
appears necessary, and the opponent is represented by an RA.
The representative of the accused judges of the OLG-Hamm, was the General public Attorney-Hamm,
(even housed in the same building !!).
The accused judges Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling / Dr. Tamm of the OLG-Hamm and their judicial
representation, the General Public Prosecutor-Hamm, are qualitatively more than the approved
The term RA presupposes: Law studies with exams and professional approval and the GenStAnw-
( = General Public Prosecutor-Hamm) fulfills the requirements.
Especially since the Member of General Public Prosecutor-Hamm, Ms Reelsen, which is handling
the matter, has also met the above requirements.
The proportionality of the qualifications and the judicial means was not guaranteed (a normal
citizen against JURA-studied / qualified state employees).
In this respect, § 121 (2) ZPO in conjunction with § 121 (5) ZPO could / should have been applied
by the LG-Essen committee (after consultation with the ASt).
The conversion would have been the basis and could / should have been applied after
reinterpretation by the committee of the written § 78b ZPO in § 121 (2), (5) ZPO (after the court
advised the ASt).
Finally, the court's reference to Section 121 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) in page 2
of the decision allows the above procedure.
The result of the LG Essen committee is not convincing for another reason, namely because of
the violation of the procedural rights of the ASt / plaintiff, with which the complaint is also justified.
The challenged decision of April 27, 2021 was already written and announced by the LG-Essen
committee before the statement of the Attorney General-Hamm was received by the LG-Essen
on April 27, 2021. The ASt did not receive a statement from the legal representative of the
accused during the PKH proceedings. Decision of 27.4.21 violates procedural rights.
The plaintiff had the undisputed procedural right to read and comment on the statement by
GenStAnw-Hamm before the LG decision was announced on April 27, 2021. (see lawsuit / PKH
dated December 9, 2020). After that, the committee could / should have made a decision;
The reinstatement in the previous status due to the premature drafting / promulgation of
the resolution 27.4.2021 is possible
Both the incorrect legal acceptance of the rejecting LG-Essen decision of April 27, 2021,
as well as the violation of the procedural rights of the ASt, justify the request for (review of
the decision or) the annulment of the decision as unlawful.
The court will be contacted to announce a legally compliant decision.
With best regards
Dr. Th. Sartoros