16th April 2010
I supposed to testify for Stachowske
Now call me Ruthard Stachowske and his lawyer in other proceedings as witnesses in their case. I will confirm a story about a "piping hot release". Mr. Stachowske, I will not fit into a team that photographed Former instead to talk to them, I do not fit into a team that senses danger when a mother tells her daughter: "If you look to the moon, you know, I think of you. " Mr. Stachowske, you should reach the witnesses who have otherwise called. They are: you, your own lawyer and his secretary. I'd like to spoil the soup because it only because I stay with the truth ... This "piping hot release" does not exist. Your lawyer and you have submitted to the Court no evidence for the existence.
15th April 2010
TG-prosecutor accused me process fraud before
If it seems as bold it is now not really, there is another statement of the lawyer of Ruthard Stachowske as head of the Therapeutic Community Wilsche break. In administrative proceedings under 325 O 13/19 they throw me since 6 April 2010 "process scams. It does not agree that I the challenged post on the evening of 26 have taken in January 2010 from the network.
The Hamburg Regional Court of table on now: The lawyer of Ruthard Stachowske on 27 January 2010 informed that I am the interim order was served. This information he gets like this: I will on 26 have informed January 2010 in the network on the service. Lie!
Now the lawyer is even on the PC and find my pages to "the illegal publication". What they mean is not the fictitious report on the service, but the attacked by a temporary injunction notice.
gets then the secretary of the lawyer the job, "to prepare a witness." Active it is at 16.22 clock. It calls on my pages and there find. In this case, it's mission: make a note. Makes it.
Applications for Administrative proceedings on 12 February 2010 found. Neither this application nor the second statement of the lawyer of Ruthard Stachowske be accompanied by copies of the contributions. Does not: The one I have on 26 January 2010 cleared the other, the fictional lawyer.
names for these accounts is that law even himself as a witness!
the charge of fraud process I will not let me please. Why is it prosecutors?
6th March 2010
The TG-Monopoly: Go to jail?
"... we request the name and on behalf of the creditor (meaning Ruthard Stachowske, Director the therapeutic community Wilsche fold), without a hearing under abbreviation of the opinion deadline for the debtor to up to one week
first against the debtor (meaning me) is because of the breach of the title referred to injunctive prohibition of the injunction of the chamber of 21 1. set 2010 administrative fine of sensitive high, failing that, in the event that this can not be recovered, in jail to be imposed;
second the debtor to pay the enforcement costs;
third fix the amount in dispute, enforcement procedures, "
according to a" request for determination of a Order agent, "has sent the attorney of Ruthard Stachowske on 12 February 2010 to the Hamburg Regional Court.
objection made against me that I make a contribution that I had on a court order on January 26, 2010, delete, should not be deleted. One employee of the lawyer Ruthard Stachowske witness in an insurance company under oath, in which, as it did the review on 27 January 2010 on my pages are still "seen." What she wants to have read, it does not reveal.
Claims is that I was facing a "judicial ban" infringes insistent that I be made aware of the law would have and that I "part of a wider Campaign against the creditor and the Youth Services Lüneburg gGmbH "was.
Now listen to me, Mr. Stachowske! Look again at your facility to, in every corner, under every bed in every floor and outside home. Then you notice: I'm not here when I was there, you should not isolate me haul up a staircase or by the other, they should also not me with deprivation of a child threatened or feed authorities with lies about me, they also should not claim that I may let a child die in a refrigerator if they would do that to me, I would go straight to the police, the mayor and those who finance their work.
And another thing: I have the legal prohibition on 26 January 2010 to 18 clock get delivered. Upper Bailiff Thomas Onnen stuck in Wilhelmshaven it in my mailbox before he rang me and blocked the doorbell, so my dog darted to the door and wondered about the tone. I finished a telephone conversation that I had just went down, got out of my mailbox a neutral envelope in which the court was prohibited.
I read the preliminary injunction, accepted the contribution from the net and saved it in http://www.blogspot.com/ as a draft I wrote a mail to my attorney and informed him. The immediately sent a fax to the Regional Court of Hamburg and requested the application font. Then I asked my lawyer if I had taken the contribution from the net. I said yes.
more people, I was informed someone from Lüneburg called me immediately. He also asked me if I would have taken the contribution from the net. When I replied that this was now a design that is no longer available to the public, he replied: "Oh yes, that is, too ..."
Why has your lawyer until 12 February 2010 maintained its decision. Why is he not on 27 January, the court called and to Inspection of my pages requested? Then there would be but a credible witness for the alleged violation. They are known to the court but after three preliminary injunctions, an action and a further order on appeal ...
Last Note: Ask once the manager of youth services Lüneburg why my questions are not answered. Is the same but what I make. Silence is forever!
19th February 2011
court doubts application
Now the Hamburg court to the lawyer by Ruthard Stachowske given 14 days time to give his application substance. I made the allegation was not substantiated reasons were.
0 comments:
Post a Comment