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






PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt)

Friday, 04 October 2019 21:02

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Mrs STEIN, Mrs FUHR, Mrs GLAESER, Mrs KIRSCHNER, JUDGES of OLG-Düsseldorf (English Tanslation 19.9.2019) Part One

Note please, that in the English translation could creep errors,

The translation is made prevaling from Google translator.

If you find errors send a massage to the author. 

The reader finds in PART ONE the mean near the text of used abbreviations 

A List of abbreviations with translation will  follow at the end of PART TWO.  

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 ESSEN-Kettwig

Sept. 19, 2019


To the

Public prosecutor Düsseldorf

Fritz Roeber Str. 2

40213 Düsseldorf/Germany


Here: criminal complaint against the judges of Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf/Germany ( = OLG) Mrs.

           Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs. Kirschner for crimes according to § 331 Penal Law or

           right-wing inflection according to § 339 Penal Code, to court of appeal-Az 18 U 69/16 (Appeal

             procedure against regional court-Düsseldorf (=LG) final judgment of 11. May 2016 on Az 2b o

           271/01), also against the regional court of Düsseldorf judges Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.

           Gundlach/Mrs. Brecht and Mrs. Freitag, because of right inflections according to § 339 Penal

          Code on Az 2b o 271/01 (in the final judgment of 11.5.2016 etc)


Dear Sir or Madam,

Hereby the signer, address as above, raise criminal complaint against the designated judges of Court of Appeal

of the 18th Civil Senate of Düsseldorf, Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner for multiple deliberate

offenses according to § 331 Penal Code among others in the judgment of court of appeal of Düsseldorf of 18.10.2017

to Az 18 U 69/16, or because of multiple deliberate legal infractions according to § 339 Penal Code to court of appeal

of Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16 (appeal against the regional court of Düsseldorf judgment of 11 May 2016 Az 2b o 271/01

and of court of appeal of Düsseldorf in judgment of 18/10/2017) or because of several violations of law (eg* Art. 101 GG,

Art. 103 GG, § 48 ZPO) etc. (*eg = exempli gratia = for example)

such as

against the regional court of Düsseldorf judges of the 2b Civil Chamber Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach

because of multiple offenses according to § 331 Penal Code or because of multiple legal infractions according to § 339

Penal Code to Az 2b o 271/01 in the judgments of 11 May 2016 and 16 March 2011 or because of several violations (eg

Art. 101 GG, Art. 103 GG, Art. 75 GVG, Art. 47 ZPO) such as

against the judges of regional court of Düsseldorf Mrs. Brecht, and Mrs. Freitag for multiple crimes according to § 331

Penal Law and "fake news", or because of multiple legal infractions according to

  • § 339 Penal Code on Az 2b o 271/01 in the decisions of 26.11.2012 and 28.5. 2014, in connection with the alleged
  • limitation of claims for damages because of the official breaches of duty of the tax office of city of Mettmann in the
  • years 1979-2006 against the plaintiff (engineer + inventor)

It is requested against the above mentioned Women judges at the Court of Appeal-Düsseldorf and at regional court-of

Düsseldorf to start investigations and open the criminal proceedings.

The offenses and violations are described in the following documents, provided with legal comments, and others,

documented with the following

  1. Constitutional Court (= BVerfG) decision of 20. Sept.2018, Az 2 BvR 1840/18, signed

                                                                                       Mr. Voßkuhle/Mrs. Kessal-Wulf/Mr. Maidowski

  1. Federal Supreme Court (= BGH) decision of 23 May 2018, Az III ZR 332/17, signed          

                                                          Mr. Herrmann/ Mr. Seiters/ Mr. Reiter/ Mrs. Liebert/ Mrs. Böttcher

  1. BGH-decision dated July 25, 2018, Az III ZR 332/17, signed Herrmann/Seiters/Reiter/Mrs Liebert/

                                                                                                                                               Mrs Böttcher

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf ruling of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser

                                                                                                                                                  Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision of 30.8.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /

                                                                                                                                                   Mrs. Glaeser

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision of 19.7.2017 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

       signed Mrs. Stein / Unger / Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf official statement by Mrs. Fuhr of 11.4.2017, Az 18 U 69/16
  2. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf decision from 12.1.2017 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf Az

                                                                         18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner

  1. Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf official statement of Mrs. Glaeser from 31.8.2016, Az 18 U 69/16,

                                                                                                                                                   Az 18 W 25/16

  1. (PKH =) Demand for official aid, from 19.8.2016 to Court of Appeal of Düsseldorf-Az 18 U 69/16

                   with a motion for bias against Mrs. Glaeser

  1. Appeal of 18.8.2016 against the final verdict of 11 May 2016 of regional court of Düsseldorf
  2. Self-indictment of Partiality from 30.5.2016 acc. § 48 ZPO of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.


  1. Final judgment of 11 May. 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.Gundlach/Frank
  2. OLG-Decision 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Mr Malsch/Mrs Glaeser/Mr Anger
  3. LG-decision of 28.5.2014, Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Brecht/Mrs. Freitag
  4. LG decision of 26.11.2012 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht
  5. OLG-decision of 7.6.2011 to Az 11 W 12/11 signed Mrs. Rotzheim/Mrs Jungclaus/Mr Wermeckes
  6. LG-Default Judgment 16.3.2011 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs.Hoffmann/Mrs.Keiser


  1. LG decision of 11.5.2005 to LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Drees/Mr. Galle


  1. AG-Essen (= magistrate´s court of city Essen) decision of 2.1.2002 signed Dr. Locher

                                                                                                               "Request for supervisor is rejected"

  1. LG-annulment decision of 29.11.2001 to LG-Az 2b o 118/99 signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co
  2. LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 Official statement of Mrs. Tannert of 18 May 2001
  3. LG proof decision of 28.11.2000, LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 signed Mrs Tannert / Mrs Fuhr /

                                                                                                                                              Mr Schumacher

  1. LG-letter dated 6.1.2000 of Mrs Fuhr "in representation of the chairwoman" to the plaintiff

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

  1. Introductory, Legal situation

The judges are subject to the law (Article 97 Basic Law) and a breach of law occurs when a decision with legal rules

is not justifiable.

Art. 97 GG guarantees the protection of legal validity against attacks "from within", ie judges.

According to § 339 Penal Code, the right-wing infractions are punishable by imprisonment of 5 years and the

limitation period (for general offenses, which are subject to the statute of limitations) depends on the amount of the

punishment threat, i.e. the limitation period in general cases with penalty of 5 years, expires after 5 years (§ 78, No. 4,

Penal Code).

The beginning of the limitation period is based on § 78a Penal Code (after a procedure has ended legally).

The limitation period rests in the cases of § 78b Penal Code.

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

by a decision of the BVerfG of 20.9.2018. (BVerfG decision received 6.10.2018)

(Receipt no. 1) Concerning. the commencement of the limitation period for the bringing of an appeal against damages.

claims for damages caused by decisions of the civil servants, the BGH decision applies that

"the limitation period can start only if the damaged knows that the official acted deliberately".

The proof of the intention deliver among others, the OLG-Düsseldorf judgment from 18.10.2017 to

Az 18 U 69/16 (Document no. 4), and Higher Regional Court decisions of Düsseldorf dated 3.9.2015

(Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) (receipt no. 14), dated 12.1.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner)

(voucher no 8), and of 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) (Voucher No. 5),

as well as the LG-Düsseldorf Judgments issued on May 11, 2016 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach

/ Frank) (voucher no. 13), and of March 16, 2011 (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser)

(voucher no. 18), and LG decisions dated 26.11.2012 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht)

(voucher No. 16), and of 28.5.2014 (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Brecht / Mrs. Freitag ) (voucher No. 15)

both to item 2b o 271/01, which was also referred to in order to take into account the respective deadlines for the

continuation of the procedure and timely appeal was always filed.

 The § 339 Penal Code (StGB) refers to "infractions of justice" and reads as follows:

"A judge, another public official or an arbitrator guilty of deferring the law in directing

or deciding a case in favour of or to the detriment of a party shall be punished with

imprisonment of between one year and five years."

The legislature explains (Art. 19. Nr. 129, EGStGB = Introduction Law of Penal Code), in addition,

that "deliberate or knowledgeable action is not required, but" conditional intention "is sufficient".

The § 339 Penal Code affects only judges and applies to the protection and legitimacy of the law,

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

The act can be committed (according to BGH):

> by infringement of substantive law, such as the application of invalid laws; or

> by misapplication of the law, for example by deviating from clear legal norms;

> or making or having a measure not provided for by law;

> or by falsification of the facts to which the law is to be applied;

> or by violation of the obligation to inform

   or exceeding the judicial discretion,

> or issue of an order that is to be executed prematurely.

> The violation of procedural standards may also be sufficient (BGH 32, 357; 42, 343; 47, 105).

> Deflection of rights also results from unlawful gathering of evidence,

> or by consciously "overlooking" applications "and much more

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

> "justified the procedural violation of the concrete danger of a wrong decision

   without actually having any advantage or disadvantage.    (BGH 42, p. 343, 346, 356)

  The BGH adds that:

 "A bending of the right is then only if the offender consciously and in a serious way

  away from the jurisdiction and from the law ".

  The case law assumes that "the diffraction of the law required by § 339 of the Criminal Code

                                                                                 is more than the violation of binding legal norms ".

> The intent must be directed to the right in favour of or against a party

    to hurt; no special purpose is required (BGH 32, 360)

From above mentioned Compilation of a few of the most important terms will also result

in some necessary explanations: first on "conditional intent (and subject matter):

      (More about the BGH contradiction to the "conditional intent" see literature)

> Conditional intent, in order to take into account the special decision-making situation

   of the judge wear, if he internalizes the possibility of the error of the legal opinion


> Conditional intent is also present if the judge is the legal impersonation of a

   Considers it possible to reach an opinion that seems appropriate to him

   Results but accepted; this does not require a totally foreign motivation.

> The act is completed with the adoption of the legally unacceptable decision.

> Their legal effectiveness is not important.

 > Even decisions that are "void" are subject to the facts of § 339 Penal Code.

The last sentence is supplemented by the applicant in the following way:

> "Even decisions that are subsequently overturned by another body,

   fulfill the facts of § 339 Penal Code. "This is the case here and the sentence applicable.

Now the practices of the accused Mrs. Fuhr, then rapporteur and "in representation of

chairwoman" ( = i.V. the chairwoman) for the official liability claims of the plaintiff,

pending in the 2b civil Chamber of the regional court of Düsseldorf are mirrored

and with Case law analyzed and commented.


Conditional intent is sufficient for right-wing infraction (BGH 40, 276)

"The action is perfected, with the adoption of the legally unjustifiable decision,

if it can bring about the effect of a better or worse position of a party directly

or unfold through the realization".

For the subsequently described legal fractions of Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser /

Mrs. Kirschner, as well Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Mrs. Brecht / Mrs. Freitag,

etc. is the fact that the process 2b o 271/01 and then the appeal of 18.8.2016, Az 18 U 69/16

(and then the revision or the (NCB = No permission for appeal for the approval of the revision),

where the criminal acts (It is only completed in October 2018, and thus the effect / consequences

of the actions are unfolded. (including loss of damages, loss of court fees, loss of pension etc);

this means among others that the punishable acts are not barred.


  Cases of legal inflection (§ 339 Penal Code) in OLG-Düsseldorf decisions/judgments and evidence


B1. Case Mrs. Fuhr

  1. The deceitful content of the letter of 6.1.2000 signed Mrs. Fuhr "in representation of the

     chairwoman", to the plaintiff, and the unlawful evidence of 28.11.2000 (signed Tannert / Fuhr /

   Mr. Schumacher)

Proof No. 24 (copy of letter 6.1.2000 above) shows that Mrs. Fuhr has sent a letter "in the name of the

chairwoman" to the claimant and asked, which Advocate would represent him in case of grant

the requested PKH (= demand for official aid).

That was on the occasion of the communication of December 1999 of the plaintiff about the departure of the

then legal representative.

It can be seen from this that Mrs. Fuhr had already been instructed in the planned conspiracy of Mrs. Tannert

(then chairperson of the 2b Civil Chamber), and with the harmless question asked by the plaintiff about the intent

of the two women (Tannert / Fuhr) wanted to deceive about the planned and soon starting plot.

The "in representation of the chairwoman" reveals the complicity and offense.

The deception by the management is also a crime recorded by the § 339 Penal Code,

if it affects the situation of a party. It is (according to BGH) not necessary that a

disadvantage has arisen; is sufficient if this creates a concrete danger.

The concrete danger was caused by the fact that in the time (Jan. 2000) the plaintiff did not

have advocate as a legal representative could call and the conspirators have exploited quickly.

     On 29 February 2000, the plaintiff sends a DINA4 Leitz folder filled with 592 leaves

     with evidence of the violations and offenses of the officials of the FA (=Tax Office of city)

     Mettmann. It contains a number of references proving the nationality of the plaintiff.

     The consideration of the folder would have prevented them from taking the "order of

     evidence of 28.11.2000 ". Several leaves revealed that the plaintiff was Greek Citizen

     and this meant an appeal to the Greek judiciary, which they ignored.

     The inadequate clarification of facts is also covered by § 339 Penal Code.

B2. The secret applications of March 2000 at AG-Essen (=magistrate´s court of city Essen)

         (for the initiation of a Care procedure) to eliminate the plaintiff as partial (!?) Incapacitated

         On March 7, 2000 Mrs. Tannert had secretly at the Essen district court the introduction of a

         Procedure for the dismissal of the plaintiff requested. The document no. 22 confirms o.g.


        So, the "internalization of the offense" is detectable to the women because they

         have requested an inadmissible secret procedural action, i. the claimant (without Advocate)

        as "partially (!?) unable to process" switch off. So that was also a concrete danger

         originated by § 339 Penal Code is recorded.


B3. The "Proof of Conclusion of 28.11.2000 signed Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr /Mr Schumacher"

       (Voucher No. 23)

      The danger has become even more acute on 28.11.2000 than the conspiracy of spinning

     2 women (Tannert / Fuhr) the then young judge Schumacher have turned to commit the

       "completion of the offense".

     Schumacher signed as "LG (= regional court) judge", although he was then only an

      "apprentice" (= so a judge on probation) was, which should be incorporated in the plots.

   The "malicious deception" is also covered by § 339 Penal Code.

     It is therefore unlawfulness of the composition of the body (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs.Fuhr /Mr.

     Schumacher), which also underpins the intentions of the judges (and Mrs. Fuhr).

     On Nov. 28, 2000, as a collegiate body, they issued the "Proof of Evidence", whereby

     the plaintiff on the part of the Medical association of Dusseldorf as "partially (?!)

     incapacitated" should be stamped.

      As a result, European and German law is bent. (Art. 1 EuGVÜ, Art. 7 EGBGB),

     covered by § 339 Criminal Code

But after March 7, 2000 (application by Mrs. Tannert at AG-Essen for a "mentoring process", too

on 31.3.2000 the application for a "guardian with reservation of consent" followed) and until 28.11.2000

(issuing of the proof) a series of events took place, which provide additional proof

and show, with which intensity the conspirators (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs Fuhr) the elimination of

the plaintiff in person and in so far as his deprivation as a party planned and pushed forward.

The goals of women are therefore obviously criminal and punishable under § 339 Penal Code.

They urged the judge of the AG-Essen (Mr. Winterpacht) therefore a quick decision to announce

(ie before an Advocate appears), because they could already have guessed that the involvement

of a lawyer for the procedure at AG-Essen, their desired decision on the part of the AG- City of

Essen, was endangered and fears that the appointed SUPERIOR would not come.

In addition, on 27 September 2000 (two months before the adoption of the decision), the applicant sent

a letter to the 2b Civil Chamber informing him that he was a Greek citizen and, pursuant to the then

transnationally applicable Art. 7 EGBGB, responsible for an incapacitation, which was Greek justice.

The German judiciary would have had to send a request for help to the Greek judiciary.

The plaintiff applied for the suspension / termination of the care procedure for breach of EU law.

Information and application has Mrs. Fuhr ignored as a rapporteur, and this is fully according to

  • § 339 Penal Code to their load.

On the other hand, the AG-judge Winterpacht, wrote on 15 Nov. 2000 to Mrs. Tannert / Mrs.Fuhr

of the 2b Civil Chamber that a care procedure would be difficult to carry out, because no mental

illness was detectable by the plaintiff.

At that time, the women foiled with rage (see file 2b o 118/99, ADOPT files!)

and then castrated the AG judge Winterpacht legally.

They did not inform him about the issued "order of proof of 28.11.2000" and left it

the plaintiff to inform of this to the AG-Essen judge.

The conspirators wanted to quickly switch off the plaintiff and have the existing laws,

(EuGVÜ, EGBGB) the judge colleagues of the AG-Essen, and completely ignored the

applications of the plaintiff.

This convinces about their purpose, goals and mood, i.e. to achieve a planned result

against the claimant. That was criminal and punishable according to § 339 Penal Code.

In addition, the judgments delivered by the (FG=) Financial Tribunal of Düsseldorf contained

a number of references concerning the Greek nationality of the applicant, and those

references were made by the FG. It is essential that the body of regional court (in particular

Mrs Fuhr as rapporteur) takes account of this. But she did not do that; the alleged "oversight"

is covered by § 339 Penal Code.

All above described Events / evidence are on the part of the Panel (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr /

Mr Schumacher) was ignored and the ruling on 28.11.2000 formulated so that the plaintiff no

Chance had, if it had been realized, to shake off the pejorative stamp from him.

The conspiratorial actions of women (Tannert/Fuhr) also had a delay effect on the official

liability claims 2b o 118/99 u. 2b o 271/01, which were connected in February 2001 and

the plaintiff had to defend against it. The aim of the combination of the two processes was

the intention of the criminal women to bring both official liability actions to failure in one

fell swoop.

The disadvantage of a party resulting from the action of the judge is also covered

by § 339 Penal Code

The above described Facts also prove the legal violations of Mrs. Tannert /Mrs Fuhr against

the Enlightenment and against falsification of the facts, and these violations are also covered

by § 339 Penal Code. Both women have falsified the facts and undermined existing EU law.

The criminally thinking and acting women (Tannert / Fuhr) attracted an intern Mr Schumacher,

(at that time a judge on probation) approached, in order to give him the responsibility for their

long-prepared criminal act (decree of the decision of November 28, 2000).

At the time, Mr. Schumacher did not have a protected "LG judge title" and both women

(Tannert / Fuhr) supported the "malicious deception" of the trainee (to be signed as

"LG judge"). Mrs. Fuhr can not and does not deny today that he knew nothing about it.

The decision of the collegial body burdened to the extent of all three parties involved.

Mrs Fuhr cannot and must not shirk responsibility to the others.


B4. Annulment of the decision of proof of 28.11.2000 by another chamber member

The "Nullity of the Proof of Conclusion of 28 Nov. 2000 (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr / Schumacher)"

also proves the "content of the annulment decision of 29.11.2001" written by a other chamber

occupation. (Receipt no. 21)

This (repeal decision of 29.11.2001) expressly refers to the EU's and Greek laws (Greek ZPO and

Civil Code) mentioned by the plaintiff and applicable to him. However, the two women (Tannert/

Fuhr) did not want the current EU, EGBGB Art. 7, and not apply Greek laws. The planned offense

was for the above mentioned Women more important than the law.


B5. Rejection on 2 January 2002 by AG-Essen of the secret applications of March 2000

In addition, the secret applications at the AG-Essen (=magistrate´s court of city Essen) are dated

March 31, 2000 for the purpose of maintaining a supervisor with consent, from AG-Essen on

January 2, 2002 rejected. (Receipt no. 20)

The decision is only at the time of the introduction of the Civil Code new version = BGB n.F.

 valid from 1.1.2002 and delivered a few days later. This is a "special circumstance"

according to Law (BGB n.F.) that the effect of the statute of limitations according to previous law

(BGB a. F.) in the period from 1.1.2002 continues.

But Tannert/Fuhr have remained silent and thus the application of § 339 Penal Code made possible.


B6. Mrs Fuhr has as LG judge planned/executed only offenses according to § 339 Penal Code.

B6.1 Why did Mrs. Fuhr ignore the contents of the files 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 and

         of the DINA4 Folder?  Folder with the 592 sheets and the evidence of Greek nationality

          of the plaintiff, contained in the FG judgments / orders ?   to harm the claimant.

B6.2 Why did not she investigate after receiving the applicant's letter of 27 Sept. 2000?

         to determine that in fact the expressly named EuGVÜ Art. 1 and EGBGB Article 7

         apply to the claimant? and a request for help with the Greek justice required?

        She already had the inner dislike and wanted to turn off the claimant personally.

B6.3 Why has it bowed EU law and distorted the facts? and why does she have

        as A .... wiper or as "in representation of the chairwoman" Mrs. Tannert said

         to all "Yes" and "Amen"?

         is it because the violation of the BGH jurisdiction regarding intent of the officials

         is not an offense?

        At the time she was unaware that the signature under the Evidence Warrant was a

        concrete danger represented? and the unlawful consequences would be the plaintiff's

        life have to carry? The answers show the intent to harm the plaintiff

B6.4 Why did she submit after the request 27.9.2000 (on cessation of the illegal and

       against the applicable EU and German laws directed care) none

       Communication sent to the AG-Essen for the secretly requested illegal dismissal

       stop the plaintiff and complete quickly? That contradicted the plot

 B6.5 Why did she ask Judge Winterpacht about the adoption of the unlawful evidence

          decision of 28.11.2000 not informed?

          The humiliation of the AG-judge had also come to it when she learned from him that the

          Enforcement of secret applications via a supervisor was not feasible.


B7. Activity and decisions of Mrs. Fuhr as OLG judge on Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Az 2b o 271/01)

        Mrs. Fuhr was already promoted to OLG judge in 2001/02 and at OLG-Düsseldorf had

        a comfortable place until the end of 2016. In the beginning of 2017 entered the 18th

       Civil Senate, where the appeal of the plaintiff (OLG Az 18 U 69/16) had to be decided.

       As at the then time (2000/01) by regional court, also now at the court of appeal-18.

     Senate (2017) commits her only Violations of law / legal inflections.


B7.1 The decision-making body (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner) sits on 12.1.2017

            although she according to § 48 ZPO was not allowed and relieved the heavily burdened

         Mrs. Glaeser to Az 18 U 69/16 from the charge of bias. The above mentioned Panel

         has wrote that


      "the participation of the rejected judge in the appeal proceedings 18 W 1/13 and 18 W44/14

       is a typical procedural pre-recourse and not taken alone appropriate to justify the concern of bias"


       So, it is confirmed (in)directly that the rejected (Mrs. Glaeser) has a Vorbefassung

      (= negative attitude towards the plaintiff), which had resulted from the appeal proceedings

       18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 came here.

       The crimes committed there (Mrs. Glaeser) are punishable, but by the other offender

       (Fr. Fuhr) in the next lines designed as flawed legal applications that are not punishable.

       Mrs Fuhr drove Fr. Kirschner to write the negative decision of 12.1.2017 signed (Mrs. Stein/

       Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Kirschner) after their "recommendations" and the Mrs. Glaeser theatrically


       The same (= relief) expected Mrs. Fuhr also by Mrs. Stein in the refusal request against them

         (against Mrs. Fuhr) and the discharge came too.

B7.2. Mrs Fuhr knew from her years of work at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf that

         it was not responsible the 18th Senate to decide against rejection of members of the 18th


         In the case of bias applications in accordance with GVP (= Distribution of duty on Senates),

         OLG-Düsseldorf-the 11 Senate was/is responsible.

         Other interpretation of the published GVP and this equipped with force-law is not allowed.

         So Mrs Fuhr knew she was in an illegally formed body on the 12.1.2017 sat. The violation of

         ECtHR case law is simply ignored and rejected by the Section 339 of the Criminal Code

         (see Decision EGMR No. 42.095 / 98 Daktaras % LTU)


B7.3. With official statement which Fr. Fuhr has delivered on 11.4.2017, confirms that

       on 28.11.2000 she had signed the "Proof of Evidence" and she agreed with which the

       medical association Dusseldorf was instructed to stamp the plaintiff as partial (!?)

       Incapacitated (ie only for the civil liability lawsuits pending at the 2b Civil Chamber! )

       but she denies that she has committed criminal offenses.

       (see official statement of Mrs Fuhr of 11.4.2017, receipt no. 7)


       Is it not a criminal offense to avoid the competent Greek judiciary and the applicable laws

       (EuGVVO Art. 1, EGBGB Art. 7)? is not an offense a PKH seeker (without legal Assistance)

         to commit the violation of Art. 101 and Art. 103 GG?

       is it because the violation of the BGH jurisdiction regarding intent of the officials is not

       an offense?

       At the time she was unaware that the signature under the Evidence Warrant was a

       concrete danger represented? and the unlawful consequences would be the plaintiff's

        life have to carry? The answers show the intent to harm the plaintiff


B7.4. On Aug. 30, 2017 Mrs. Fuhr also provided the heaviest criminal proof of what she said

         of Laws and case law. She sat in the committee (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser),

         with which the PKH application for the appeal 18 U 69/16 is rejected. Here, comments

         are made in the OLG ruling on Az 18 U 69/16 of 30.8.2017 written.

          It is first stated here that Mrs. Fuhr has an indication of her bias under § 48 ZPO

          should have done. She had participated in the associated procedure 2b o 118/99

          and on 28.11.2000 signed the "proof of evidence". (See BGHZ 172,250, NJW 2007,2702)

          The "decision of proof" is set aside by other members of the chamber and as justification

          that there are no indications that the applicant could be limited in his business and thus

           process capability. Given this history from the in connection with proceedings 2b o 118/99,

         Mrs Fuhr found that the applicant was entitled Doubts about their impartiality had, and

           this realization would Mrs. Fuhr to one indictment in accordance with § 48 ZPO.

         The violation of § 48 ZPO and § 41 ZPO was considerably for the subsequent appeal

         judgment and constitutes a criminal offense.


      B8. Excerpts from the Higher Regional Court decision of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs Stein /

         Mrs Fuhr /Mrs Glaeser Az 18 U 69/16

      B8.1 In page 6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2, the Panel declares the validity and applicability

              of the Civil Code a.F. (§ 211), that "after legally binding completion of the procedure

             with the FG the 3-year-old Statute of limitations began to run again ".


             The panel commits the multiple process fraud in the last 3.5 lines of the second

             paragraph in conjunction with lines 1-2 of the second paragraph; There (last lines

             of paragraph 2) is the following.


            "In favour of the plaintiff, the Senate has already in previous decisions for this period

             assumed legal force six months, so that by the legal action before the Financial court

             triggered interruption of the statute of limitations ended on 30.06.2000 at the latest. "


       From o.g. Rows arise that

      (a) an interruption of the limitation period has occurred because of the FG rulings, and

  1. b) according to lines 1-2 of paragraph 2, the 3-year limitation period has started to run again.


  1. c) The 18th Senate has also committed the fraud demonstrated here below in

                                                                                                                    "previous decisions"

  1. d) they are in favour of the plaintiff

      (e) the legal force (the limitation period) six (6) months after notification of the FG verdict lasts


    Under o. "Point c" ("earlier decisions") is the process fraud of Mrs. Glaeser to

   Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) from 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

   meant, and in the next lines (also in chapter concerning Glaeser), analyzed/commented.

   The pun on the terms "statute of limitations", "time limit of limitations",

"interrupt of limitations" the offender (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

   produced the confusion and then write the wrong one Result of attaining

   the alleged "statute of limitations"; the intent is demonstrable;

    in the following way:


  "The FG proceedings have nevertheless interrupted the statute of limitations

     (primary legal protection) and these Interruption of the statute of limitations

   due to the FG proceedings (ie because of the primary legal protection) ended

     one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last ?!) FG judgment ".


   Well, on the basis of the data of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision,

   in page 6, paragraph 2. the (alleged !!) last FG judgment on 24.11.1999, it follows that:

   Assuming that the FG-judgment was delivered in early January 2000, it 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 challenging by the BFH !!).

   Thereafter, i. from the beginning of February 2000, the legal 3-year limitation period

   (according to Civil Code) for the collection of the official liability action began to run.

     (as OLG confirmed in line 1, paragraph 2)

    The end of this statutory limitation period according to Civil Code would be 3 years later

    i.e. occurred in February 2003

   The panel of Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, however, claims that the interruption

     of the (Civil Code) "statute of limitations" on "30.6.2000" ended, without specifying that

     the interruption of the statute of limitations due to the primary legal protection ended

   and then the 3-year limitation period has started to run.

     Thus, the offense is completed and the offense is also revealed in page 6, paragraph 3,

   in point a) where it writes that the limitation period of 3 years according to Civil Code a.F.

  •    § 211 ended on "30.6.2000 at the latest on 31.07.2006 ".

   That, neither on 30.6.2000 nor on 31.7.2006 the 3-year-old (civil code) limitation period

   (the in February. 2000 has started to run) on 30.6.2000 ended, is only result of the

   planned / executed Process fraud of women.

    The trio (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /Mrs. Glaeser) purposely avoided writing that the

    3 year old Limitation period according to Civil Code in February 2000 has started to run.

   By the suppression and use of the word "statute of limitations" (from the primary legal

   protection !!), the panel has misled the reader and thus achieved the wrong result

    i.e. that the 3 years (Civil Code) limitation period on 30.6.2000, or at the latest (!?)

     on 31.7.2006 would have expired

     In addition, the panel, both in Resolution 30.8.2017 and in the whole OLG ruling of

     18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 does not explain how the date of 31.7.2006 results.

     The 3e break in Page 6, is completed with a mysterious date "31.7.2006", which is the

   arbitrariness of the panel and the process fraud proves what the panel in any case the

     absurd  "Enforce prescription" tries.

       This is punishable by Penal Code with more than 5 years imprisonment.

     The fallen with the parachute date "31.7.2006" serves the committee later for others

     criminal conclusions and "the fraud is served in favour of the plaintiff" (so the panel)

     The ladies obviously stand above the laws and can arbitrarily legal monthly period

     lengthen or shorten.


B9. The distortion of the facts committed in page 7 serves to the aim to do, i.e. to achieve

       the statute of limitations. To enforce the limitation of claims for damages and to

     "cover up" the crimes of the revenue-office of the city Mettmann.

    Throughout the Higher Regional Court decision dated 30.8.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed

     (Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) is nowhere written a word about the more

     frequently directed complaint/reminder that the Bank seizures from 1986-1989

     have not been abolished until today, although three of the team of the FA-Mettmann

       had twice applied for annulment. The head of the swamp was against it.

           "As long as the damage intervention lasts the statute of limitations cannot start"

                                  the BGH has decided (which still applies today).

     If the above panel of court of appeal with the two offenders (Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

     reported it in the facts, then the requested PKH would have granted as well on 18.10.2017

       as in Judgment on 18 U 69/16 of the compensation of damages.

     But they wanted to enforce the statute of limitations in each case, therefore of the bank

   seizures and the application of the three heads of section was silent and thus distorted /

     manipulated the facts, as it was convenient for them.

         This is also punishable by the § 339 Penal Code.


B10. Also the compensation for pain is in the view of the offenders (Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

         "statute barred" (see resolution 30.8.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, page 10, point e)


     Damage to health, however, becomes time-barred according to Civil Code a.F.

       and according Civil Code n.F. in 30 years.

       Claim 2b o 271/01 was filed on 5.2.2001 and previously the limitation period was

       interrupted (primary legal protection).

       When did the 30-year limitation period of the Civil Code expire?


     If the o.g. Bank seizures are taken into account, the limitation period has not yet

      started running. That again convinces about the intention of the offenders to achieve

     the "statute of limitations for all applications" and on criminal liability under § 339

     Penal Code.


     In addition, it has repeatedly been said that the compensation for pain is not included

     in Az 2b o 268/01 because no identical cause has, as the requested compensation money

     to Az 2b o 271/01 for the crimes the FA (= revenue-office of city)-Mettmann (subsidy

     loss etc, even if coincidentally have the same amount).

     The assertion of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf was also dealt with in detail

     in the appeal of 18.8.2016 (Pp. 59-60 and in pleading 12.7.2012, p. 3, 94, 117) and

       invalidated, but the OLG Panel in any case, the claim for damages of the plaintiff

     wanted with false claims destroy.

     This convinced of intent and criminal offense according to § 339 Penal Code.

 Incidentally, what the trio (Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Fuhr /Mrs Glaeser) in the PKH-rejecting

   decision of 30.8.2017 writes in order to justify the reject of the claims for alleged

   prescription, is almost unchanged in the OLG judgment taken on 18.10.2017, so that

   the offense is repeated.


 C: Case Mrs. Glaeser

  1. She is in the OLG-18. Civil Senate occurred around March 2015, and on September 3,

       2015 signed  the Decision in which the panel (Malsch /Mrs Glaeser / Anger) criminal

       offenses has committed


     What criminal instincts Mrs. Glaeser possessed, she proves in the resolutions of 3.9.2015

      to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14

     Noticeable in this decision of 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13 are the following facts:

  1. all events that took place during the period 2000-2003 and influencing the question

              of limitation are from panel (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) discreet; eg. as

  1. Connection in March 2001 u. Separation in Nov. 2001 of the 2 proceedings 2b o 118/99

                                                                                                                                    and 2b o 271/01,

III. or the secret applications of March 2000 by Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr at the AG-Essen

  1. or the AG-Essen decision, rejection on 2 January 2002 of the supervisor with consent
  2. or the final clarification of the plaintiff's process capability on 23.1.2003,
  3. or the proof of Evidence, decision of 28.11.2000 (Tannert / Fuhr / Schumacher) which

             on 29.11.2001 is cancelled by another chamber occupation.

VII. or the exclusion of Mrs. Fuhr (pursuant to § 41 No. 6 ZPO (= Civil Procedure Code)

             or § 48 ZPO) to participate in further decisions in Az 2b o 271/01

VIII or the illegality of the composition of the LG bodies (for example, on 4.4.2003, 11.5.2005,

          on 16. March 2011)

  1. or about the consequences of the statute of limitations for applications for bias against

      the LG judges (18.12.2002 Stockschlaeder-Nöll, 5.5.2003 against Strupp-Müller, 21.9.2010

       against Mrs. Hoffmann)

  1. or about the consequences of the process fraud on 9.8.2007 and 18.9.2007 of the -

      Strupp Müller/Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle and the trial fraud of 29.8.2007 of the cost

     official (Mr. Habich)

  1. or concerning the repayment by FA-Mettmann to the applicant in 1999-2000-2001-

   (The repayment after agreement by financial court on 15.12.2006 is evaluated differently

   by the LG / OLG)

Likewise, there is no word in the comments section on the effects of bank seizures,

although in the resolution 3.9.2015 (on immediate complaint against LG decisions

with PKH refusal) in Page 5 row 7 counted from below the "illegal seizures" are mentioned;

The applications of the three section heads of the FA-Mettmann to cancel the bank seizures

altogether, are not mentioned in any LG / OLG decision or LG / OLG judgment.

The suppression of substantive proof is a criminal offense that is punished.

Again, it is argued in decision 3.9.2015 that the claim for damages of the plaintiff was

time-barred on 31.7.2006 (page 9, line 7 counted from the top) because the "claim"

was not served until Sept. 2010 and the full payment of the court fees in Dec. 2006

could not change the already existing limitation period.


                The aim of the group (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) is obvious:


 "Prescription before the full payment of the court fees in Dec. 2006 intervenes"


To come to the absurd results, the above mentioned (= o.g.) Panel changed/manipulated

arbitrarily the legal texts of the Civil Code a.F. (eg § 209) with 6 months supplement/

extension of the statute of limitations after delivery of the last Financial court (= FG)

judgment (see page 6, paragraph 2. Line 10 counted from above, or page 7, line 3

counted from above).

The arbitrary modification / manipulation of the legal text is a serious offense

which is punished according to Penal Code with at least 5 years deprivation of liberty.

  The plaintiff argues for the

                               "Bring the accused persons before the" judge's court ",

                                    with result: the dismissal from service".

After publication of the o.g. OLG resolution of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

followed on 22.9.2015 vehemently censure and (about 22 Sept. 2015) the chairman Malsch

is relieved of his post and sent into retirement. Mr. Anger was removed from the 18th

Senate at the end of the year, while Mrs. Glaeser stayed by the 18th Senate and committed

other crimes.

To avoid repetition see Listening 22.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 and supplements.


C2. The appeal against the LG ruling 11.5.2016, the biased motion of 19. Aug. 2016

       against Mrs Glaeser on OLG Az 18 U 69/16 and her participation in both the

     PKH-rejecting decision signed on 30.8.2017 Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser

     and in the Higher Regional Court judgment 18.10.2017 signed Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser

   / Mrs. Kirschner

 The items written under items B7 and B8 to B10 are also valid in their entirety against

Mrs. Glaeser, but on Aug. 31, 2016 made a 2-line official statement (see document no. 9),

commented by the plaintiff, but she is relieved by Mrs. Stein and Mrs. Fuhr on 12.1.2017

from the charge of bias for the manipulation of legal texts.

One of the offenders (Mrs Fuhr) relieves the other offender (Mrs. Glaeser).


The following are some notable legal differences between the two bodies on 3.9.2015

(Malsch /Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) to Az 18 W 1/13 and 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr /

Mrs. Glaeser) to Az 18 U 69/16 shown (which also reveal the contribution of Mrs. Stein

to the process fraud).

In resolution 3.9.2015 (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) it was stated that the written

submission of 5.2.2001, a "suit" or "claim" (7) is reported seven times, e.g.

Page 2, line 10, counted from below, on "Claims of 29.12.2001";

Page 2, lines 5-4 counted from below, redrafted on "Application for Point 1 on 13.8.2004";

                              Note: the "claim to Point 1" had been made with the action of 5.2.2001;

Page 3, line 20 from the top counted on "the action (written pleadings of 5.2.2001 and

                          13.8.2004)is delivered on 13.9.2010 ";

Page 3, line 24 counted from the top "dismissed the claim"

                           (of which date is the claim not specified !!), ie of the 5.2.2001 !!

Page 5, line 9 counted from the top, on "claim to 1";

                          Note: the "claim to Point 1" had been made with the action of 5.2.2001;

Page 8, point b) "claim to Point II";

Page 8, point c) "Application for the award of Point III"

that is, not from applications in the PKH proceedings, but from "lawsuit" or "claims"

is reported. This is in conformity with the submitted pleadings of the advocate.

In the resolution of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser, on the

other hand, is only referred to in page 7 and in page 9 of a "service delivery", but

otherwise reported only by REQUESTS; the term "application of Claims" or "Claims"

of the resolution of 3.9.2015, is deleted / not used !!.


Further serious differences concern "the new claims filed on 29.12.2001"

(by order of 3.9.2015, page 2),

while in page 11, line 7 of the decision of 30.8.2017 of a "payment claim" yet written,

but the legal consequences of the limitation period in both above mentioned Decisions

(3.9.15 and 30.8.17) are concealed. The text in the resolution 30.8.2017 is the following:


"... the revised legal aid application received by the court on 31.12.2001

       left, and limited to a claim for payment and a supplementary pension. "


Well, in the newly filed applications of the Advocate on 29.12.2001 the first page

twice the speech is raised by the claim, and in page 2 also twice by the brought

lawsuit. In addition, this pleading (29/12/2001 received on 31.12.2001 at the court)

to the defendant "made known"


So, a lawsuit filed before 1.1.2002 interrupts the statute of limitations.


These facts have both the regional court of Düsseldorf (Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

Mrs. Gundlach) on May 11, 2016, as well as the OLG bodies in the two resolutions

(3.9.2015 (Malsch / Glaeser / Anger), and 30.8.2017 (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser), and

in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) suppressed to hide

the legal consequences of the alleged limitation of the claims.

All mentioned bodies of LG / OLG committees claim that no statute of limitations

occurred before 1.1.2002. Therein lies the process fraud of all those accused.

It is a "crime" punishable by 5 years imprisonment

Only in the resolution of 30.8.2018 is the manipulation / amendment of the legal

text (§ 209) Civil Code a.F. reports that the six-month extension of the limitation

period takes place "to the benefit of the appellant" (page 6, para. 2),

while in the resolution 3.9.15 the extension does not comment.

So the women (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) are suddenly above the laws

and allowed arbitrarily to extend the duration of the interruption of the statute of

limitations on the basis of the FG judgments i.e. "Extend or shorten a party's favour",

thus providing a party with procedural advantages or disadvantages (and the BGH

is silent about this !!). This is punishable under § 339 Penal Code.


   Will the prosecution find that okay ?? or denounce the accused?


C3. Another striking difference between the OLG judgment of 18/10/2017 and the

     previous of the LG decisions of 26.11.2012 and 28.5.2014, as well as the OLG

   resolution 3.9.15, the reader finds in the date of the termination of the statute

     of limitations (after consideration of the Agreement by the financial court on

       15.12.2006, or ignoring the agreement, dated 15.12.2006).

     The LG decision of 26.11.2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Jürging / Mrs. Brecht)

               terminates the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F. determined

               on 31.12.2009.

     In the LG resolution of 28.5.2014 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Mrs.Brecht /Mrs. Freitag)

             is the termination the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F. on 30.6.2010.

     In the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decision of 3.9.2015 signed Malsch/

             Glaeser/Anger the termination of the limitation period according to Civil

             Code a.F. at the 31.7.2006.

     In the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) the termination

             of the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F. on 30.6.2000, not later

           than 31.7.2006.


All mentioned Decisions only show that the authors and the committees deliberately

ignore the facts and the legal situation falsified, to come to the conclusion that,

the claims would be time barred.

     In the 1st LG decision (from 26.11.2012) the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F.

                   allegedly enters on 31.12.2009,  

                   So before the lawsuit that took place only in Sept. 2010.

    In the 2nd LG decision (from 28.5.2014) the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F.

                   allegedly enters on 30.6.2010,   that is,

                     before the service of lawsuit was delivered in Sept. 2010

      in the 3rd OLG decision (from 3.9.2015) the limitation period according to Civil Code a.F.

                 allegedly enters on 31.7.2006,  that is,

                 before full payment of court fees in Dec. 2006.

    in the 4th OLG decision (from 30.8.2017) the limitation period according to Civil Code n.F.

                 allegedly enters on 30.6.2000  ie

                 before coming into force of the new statute of limitations

                     (beginning on 1.1.2002)

        As you can see, the disagreement between the LG / OLG bodies concerns only

       the date of the statute of limitations. but the goal is always the same

                     "claims are time barred".

      The crimes are punishable by more than 5 years imprisonment and for the punishment is

      "Judge court" in Düsseldorf responsible. Only the employer (NRW) has the right to bring

     Defendants before the Judge court and to do so has the Attorney General as an assistant.


C4. Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB and infinite confusion in the Higher Regional Court decisions of

          3.9.2015, 30.8.2017, and in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017


          As the opinions of the three OLG bodies in the application of Art. 229 § 6 EGBGB

          is another proof that all three bodies by means of faulty Claims to justify the

         "statute of limitations" of the claims.

          Thus, in the OLG decision of 3.9.2015 (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) in page 7,

         the application Art. 229 § 6 Abs. 3 EGBGB confirmed, but in the decision 30.8.2017,

         in point 3, page 8 the OLG Panel (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) asserts that Art. 229 § 6

         Abs. 4 EGBGB would be correct, and it is denied in page 25 in the OLG judgment

         of 18.10.2017 (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) that there is a case where Art. 229 § 6 (3)

         applies. The Mrs. Glaeser sits in all three committees.

         Mrs Glaeser no thinks about the obvious different opinions on 3.9.15 and 18.10.17

         and had signed. She signs everything that is presented to her.


C5. About the claim for damages is in both resolution 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13

     (Malsch/ Mrs. Glaeser/ Anger) as well as in the resolution 30.8.2017, Az

     18 W 69/16, (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) and in the OLG ruling

     of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs Kirschner)

        erroneous Allegations that constitute a crime.

        The first-instance claimed, claim for damages was not subject of the procedure

        to LG Düsseldorf Az 2b o 268/01 - OLG Düsseldorf Az 18 U 223/11 - like the Prove

         the files of 2b o 268/01. To say the contrary is punishable willful lie.

        The subject of the judgment under section 2b o 268/01 was claims for lost profits

        and a claim for damages because of a lost order (AVT).

        In addition, in the view of the regional court-Dusseldorf, the claim for compensation

       for pain so that no decision has been made about it, which would have come into legal

         force. The offense by violation of the Art. 103 GG is obvious.

        In addition, the panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) claims arbitrarily in

        page 10, Point a, of the resolution 30.8.2017, that the claims for damages (in 30 years

        statute barred !!!) already on 31.7.2006 (!!) would be barred! and refers to the

        committed process fraud with the manipulation of the legal text § 209 Civil Code a.F.

        The reference to the process fraud convinces the intention to harm the plaintiff.

        Almost identical comments to the above described facts, the reader will also find

       the subject in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, pages 28-29, to which

       reference is hereby made, with which the Continuing to prove the process fraud.


C6. Statutory pension and rights violations in the resolution 3.9.2015 by the

       allegedly missing legal protection need of the plaintiff, as well as in the

       resolution 30.8.2017 page 11, and then in OLG ruling 18.10.2017 page 28, point 6

         Regarding the claim of the plaintiff, the OLG-Panel (Malsch / Mrs Glaeser /

          / Anger) in its decision of 3 September 2015 on page 8:


     "The complaint is unfounded for the reasons stated by the LG.

     The claim for legal assistance is lacking since it is the subject of proceedings

       2b O 118/99 in varying amounts, but not fundamentally unchanged. "


    It is not disputed that, in the applications of the action of 13 August 2004 Case

   No 2b o 118/99 no claims for pension claimed as the files of Az 2b o 118/99 prove.

    To say the contrary is punishable willful lie.

    The plaintiff renounced to accept the application for supplementary pension

     secondly the statement of reasons in the application of 21 June 1999.

On the other hand, the legal protection requirement for a statutory pension remains,

because the decisions on the PKH applications have not come into material legal force.

This means that the plaintiff (without loss of rights) can apply for a pension (for legal

or additional pension) and justify it every time.

For the first time, a detailed pension calculation by his pension consultant is available

for the legal pension application. This calculation has never been objected to (see

pleading of 12 July 2012, page 118 ff.).

Further violations by the OLG-committee Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger

are included in the appeal of 18.8.2016 and to avoid redundancy is referred to there.

End of the first Part


Today 19 | Yesterday 243 | Week 597 | Month 834 | All 154156