pain relieved Stalker Fred Kaier and Joerg Reinhardt sentenced again The opinion is the queen of the world because the stupidity is the queen of the imbeciles. true What if the actions of the stalker Fred Kaier and Jörg Reinholz be analyzed!
pain free What should a stalker, the ever-maligned and insulted other people? This question has merit! Multiple fixes to Joerg Reinhardt from Kassel administrative fines not paid, and then converted into imprisonment. After escape attempts
Joerg Reinhardt was arrested by police and sent to prison. Now it's time again! Cologne District Court, 123 C 341/10, Judgement of 01.05.2011 (not final):
The application of Jörg Reinh ... aka-"Fa ... tix self-proclaimed" little locksmith from the East "from 24.11.2010 to issue an injunction against the lawyers-BERGER-GbR Cologne, 50939 Cologne, is rejected.
The plaintiff is not entitled to enjoin the publication of its corporate name expelling the decision of the Landgericht Köln -84 O 214/10 dated 16.11.2010 for infringement of his personal rights. The publication of the defendant falls under the protection of Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and the professional freedom. The consideration offered is in favor of the defendant. Compared with the attacks ... des Klägers - auch in diesem Verfahren - ist die Veröffentlichung der Beklagten sachlich eingekleidet und neutral, ein Eingriff in das Persönlichkeitsrecht des Klägers und damit ein Unterlassungsanspruch besteht nicht (AG Köln -123 C 341/10-, Urteil vom 05.01.2011, aaO., S. 06, Schlusssatz).
Der Kläger hat in einer Mail an sämtliche Rechtsanwälte der beklagten Partei wie auch an sämtliche Rechtsanwälte der Kanzlei BERGER Rechtsanwälte -Düsseldorf- GbR wie auch an seinen virtuellen Freund, den anonymen Blogger der rechtsfreien Zone Kassel, in seiner bekannt-charmanten Art bereits mitgeteilt, er habe inzwischen Berufung eingelegt, auch wenn er selbst - wohl aus der Aufregung heraus - das Urteil of the Cologne District Court erroneously as a "decision" means. The applicant's whole message in the text here.
If the same plaintiff be identical legal action here: http://rechtsfreie-zone-kassel.blogspot.com/2010/12/neues-vom-schlosser-aus-dem-osten.html has in obscene manner can celebrate and a victory for "15 lawyers in the proceedings before the District Court Dusseldorf, 20 T 59/10 boasted, is to note that this decision was adopted by 30.11.2010, without the District Court Dusseldorf as appellate court was aware that the "little locksmith from the east" even his professional Behavior has taken to the public (see AG Cologne, ibid., P. 04/05) and provide a variety of long, going into the personal e-mails to the lawyers of the firm lawyers BERGER-BERGER and Cologne-GbR Rechtsanwälte-Dusseldorf- GbR has written. Since the applicant so this in "massive way sought the public debate," he added also take a greater extent than other people critique and report on his person (cf. AG Cologne, ibid., P. 05). In particular, if the plaintiff - as occurred on the specified web platform - manifests itself in competition related disputes, as he constantly tut oder durch Dritte mit seinem Einverständnis erfolgen lässt, darf der Kläger sogar namentlich benannt werden – jedenfalls nach zutreffender Entscheidung des Amtsgerichts Köln.
Wir sind uns aus vorstehend aufgezeigten Gründen sicher, dass auch das Gericht in Düsseldorf nach vollständiger Würdigung des Tatbestandes dieselbe Rechtsansicht vertreten und den ohne mündliche Verhandlung ergangenen Beschluss aufheben und den Antrag des „kleinen Schlossers aus dem Osten“ insgesamt zurückweisen wird.
Soweit der „kleine Schlosser aus dem Osten“ am 10.01.2011 wiederum einen (weiteren) Antrag auf Erlass einer Einstweiligen Verfügung bei der Rechtsantragstelle des Landgerichts Kassel made against the company Euroweb Internet GmbH had been, by this Court, 12 O 4008/11 are not met, but instead provides an oral hearing. We are also in the process assumes that the application of the Fa ... tix rejected because he views the law of a locksmith reflects that lack a legal basis. Ultimately, it is probably the way it has already formulated the prosecution Kassel on 10/27/2010: "A sense of wrongdoing is missing from the accused (meaning Jörg Reinh ... as plaintiff) is completely the contrary, a trial would be the forum he hoped that his crude theories disseminate "
Well, then, the self-proclaimed "Little locksmith from the East" has to probably on 02.04.2011 before the District Court of Kassel opportunity, then "here and now" to convince the court of this was to him - again - happened to injustice. But this assumes that it mandated for a lawyer, for a trial before the district court pursuant to § 78 ZPO process designed as an attorney. This so-called lawyer is due administration of justice, in particular the preparation process, because the necessary intervention of lawyers, the process is filtered and processed materials, and thus produced the procedural equality of parties and the dispute more objective at all.
Source: Berger Legal
No other behavior sets accomplice Fred Kaier from Steinhagen of the day.
not only as a stalker, he is known. With its sides con $ umer.info
be cheated unsuspecting victims by 25 €. at the Regional Court of Cologne was Fred Kaier exactly as accomplice Reinholz of Kassel convicted. Euroweb Internet GmbH, Euroweb and the bloggers, violation of unfair competition, breach of competition by disparagement of competitor
Does a competitor's services over the Internet nationwide, followed by the local jurisdiction of a court of § 14 paragraph 2 sentence 1 UWG - " flying Gerichtsstand“- so dass auch das Landgericht Köln zuständig ist. Eine geschäftliche Handlung liegt immer dann bereits vor, wenn die Tätigkeit im Zusammenhang mit einer auf einen wirtschaftlichen Erfolg gerichteten kommerziellen Tätigkeit und nicht im privaten Bereich erfolgt. Der Begriff ist weit auszulegen, insbesondere sind an dieses Merkmal keine hohen Anforderungen zu stellen (BGH, Urteil vom 04.12.2008, I ZR 3/06; GRUR 2009, 871 folgende), so dass der Umstand unerheblich ist, dass eine Partei freiberuflich tätig und kein Kaufmann ist. Erfasst wird jede wirtschaftliche Betätigung, mit der in Wahrnehmung oder Förderung eigener oder fremder Geschäftsinteressen am Wirtschaftsleben teilgenommen wird; nicht erforderlich is a profit-making or the accounts of the offer.
Euroweb Internet GmbH, 40549 Dusseldorf
against
J ... ... pure, Kassel
(as the person responsible for: http://fatix ...)
rejected the legal aid application by the defendant, because no reasonable prospect of this. success in terms of § has 114 ZPO.
I.
Respondent is evidenced by his statements at: http://www.fatix ... and above all the links were made on the website: ... http://...blogspot.com, competitors the applicant who work in the field of production of business websites is. This overlap in the activities of the parties to a sufficient extent so that there is a competitive relationship (LG Köln ibid, page 1). The fixed value of the claim in the amount of 50,000.00 EUR is not objectionable in view of the massive assault by the defendant in particular is not the economic (non) importance of the defendant's relevant, but only the interest of the applicant in the suppression of anti-competitive price comparison (LG Cologne ibid, page 2 at the end).
II
The defendant made the price comparison is contrary to § 4 No. 7 UWG and of § 6 (No. 5) UWG:
1) The fact that has established itself not the defendant is the anti-competitive claims regarding the applicant, but only linked to it, can not account for its liability. For he link is not random but specifically refers to this article and thus makes it his own.
The decision of the OLG Köln from 09/09/2009 U 48 -6 / 09 - (NJOZ 2010, 729) have also been established in connection with these allegations and claims linked to other reports, so that the allegations directly to the Related articles mentioned companies or institutions could relate.
Following the decision of the Supreme Court (Judgement of 01.04.2004, Az I ZR 317 / 01 - CR 2004 613 et seq is liable), although a newspaper for not linking to illegal content, if they are an extension of a contribution. The insurance is possible, but after this decision. So where auditing requirements have been violated. In the present case, even a deliberate link to the article entitled: "Euroweb / Webstyle-A price comparison". The defendant wants to make in any publicity purpose the disputed items as our own. In accordance with the principles mentioned by the defendant liable for the statements made even more so. As already has
the OLG Hamburg (Case of 14.07.2004, MMR 2004, 822 ff) for the area outside of copyright in linking a non-privileged liability assumed the linker. If, as in this case, be made by the defendant anti-competitive statements at the expense of the applicant and in favor of the defendant as its own, only then does a legal liability. Because the defendant has an annex of the present text AS have a Full range of knowledge, otherwise he would not have linked.
Even after the Munich Court gives no different. A publisher is liable for unfair competition, if it links to a download of a program that can be copied using the DVD. This represents an interference with the rights of the music publishers (OLG München, Judgement from 28.07.2005, 29 U 2887 / 05, MMR 2005, p. 768 ff.) If such a mere linking unfair to a harmful software from a specific in this case, competitor's, then in the linking to specific statements, which make both the applicant and the respondent identified and which are unfair in relation to the applicant on their part, injunctive relief of the requested procedure would be implemented. For the violation of the competitor in Munich to be decided by the Court of Appeals case is possible, but by far distant, when the possibility that a defendant in the company of interested potential customers, more than in the context of the tenor described linking the "price comparison" at http://rechtsfreie-zone-kassel.blogspot.com encounters, involving the statements made to the applicant.
2) the unfairness of the designated statements relating to the applicant depends first and foremost 4 No. 7 UWG. Under that provision, it is prohibited to the services or the business affairs of a competitor or to disparage disparage. Furthermore, in what way can take place, this reduction or defamation, makes no mention of the law. A reduction or defamation is possible in several ways. Including by linking from the tenor described without any distance.
In turn, the reduction is understood objectively unjustified reduction in the appreciation of a competitor or the disparagement of a competitor.
background of the provision is that it is not for a competitor is to lead public attacks against the business practices of a direct competitor.
It is illegal to represent a competitor as frivolous (BGH GRUR 1982, 234, 236; BGH GRUR 1986, 812, 814; Koehler: Koehler / Bornkamm, UWG, 28th edition, § 4 RN 7.26).
but exactly what can be done on the defendant to the complaint. The defendant, his offer of the applicant as a serious offer gegenüber und verbindet damit die Aussage, das Angebot der Antragstellerin sei nicht seriös. Die Tatsache, dass das als seriös dargestellte Angebot des Antragsgegners nur einen Bruchteil des Preises des Angebots der Antragstellerin beträgt, drängt sich förmlich auf, dass das Angebot der Antragstellerin gerade nicht seriös sei.
Dies macht die aufgestellte und durch den Antragsgegner zu Eigen gemachte Behauptung unlauter.
3.) Ebenso ist es unzulässig, auf eine mangelhafte Qualifikation des Mitbewerbers oder auf Mängel der erbrachten Dienstleistungen hinzuweisen (OLG Köln, WRP, 233; OLG München GRUR- RR 2004 2004, 309, Köhler in: Köhler/ Bornkamm, UWG, 28. Auflage, § 4 RN 7.26). Dies gilt umso mehr, wenn die Behauptung der mangelhaften Qualifikation bzw. der Mängel der Dienstleistungen überhaupt nicht zutreffend ist. Die Art und Weise eines solchen „Hinweises“ ist weder durch Gesetz, noch durch die Rechtsprechung auf einen ausdrücklichen Hinweis beschränkt. Sie kann daher auch durch die beschriebene Verlinkungskette erfolgen.
Der Antragsgegner verbreitet, dass die Antragstellerin auf einem technischen Niveau verharre, welches der Antragsgegner wie auch andere Mitbewerber längst überschritten hätten. Dies geschieht in der aus III. Nr. 4 ersichtlichen Art und Weise ausdrücklich durch den Satz: „Und für diese 80 % Ersparnis“ (gegenüber the applicant) the person would have a local web designer "" get, instead of fulfilling his wishes on the technical level of the Euroweb to remain "(the defendant).
The burden to show good faith the assertion that the applicant remain, on a technical level that has exceeded the defendant long ago, with the defendant. However, we place a recently created report from an expert before a plant AS 6, from which it follows that the applicant is, first, on a high state of technology, but second, that it is not more expensive than their competition, but even better, and that third deals from individual companies, such as that of the defendant with that of large companies such as the applicant is not comparable.
presumption:
expert opinion before the AG Bautzen to the question of the adequacy of the applicant's requested price for their products (Annex AS 6)
4) From the foregoing the same as the next aspect of the tenor of the apparent behavior makes unfair. It is not even competitors, to point to excessive prices of competitors (OLG Karlsruhe GRUR 1994, 130, 131), even if this statement would be true. In the case of the applicant but this is not yet once the case. It is therefore the defendant to not only right to present the offer of the applicant than five times as expensive as some of his own. Such a comparison with the described statement shall be served before the but. Although this will not be punished. Sufficient, however, that the defendant makes this claim as our own.
5) also follows the injunction but also from § 6 UWG. By his statement: "An exemplary comparison with a large competitor here." Directs the defendant to the reader to compare with what the applicant to a homepage of a likely third party. The applicant is recognizable in the sense I § \u200b\u200b6 UWG and is compared with the defendant. Here, the defendant refers to properties that are at least not verifiable. He described his offer as honest, this implied that the applicant as dishonest, because over-priced. He referred to the fact that he is the article as his own, his company as reputable, that of the applicant, rather dubious. This is a case in § 6 I, II, No. 2 UWG dar. same time violates the defendant also § 6 I, II, No. 5 UWG. This in that he contrasts with his offer which the applicant or a confrontation for its own business purposes and it makes the applicant and its services in the above-described manner reduces and vilified.
III.
That leaves the 4th through the Chamber for Commercial Matters, 84 O 214/10, the Cologne Regional Court on 09/23/2010 issued against the defendant restraining order remains in force. Respondent has notified immediately after delivery of the tasks, that do not accept as final settlement, so that parallel the main lawsuit also is pending in the District Court of Cologne. Also for this is likely the defendant-respondent-term as there lack of success probably no legal aid is granted.
Breach of the competitive bid, no to conduct public attacks against the business practices of a competitor, especially in the age of-partially-indulgent InternetsEuroweb Internet GmbH, Euroweb to justice; Euroweb Blog, injunctive relief, violation of the UWG
It is not up and property of competitors, public attacks against a competitor / lead to competitors, in particular, it is not competition / competitors, on-supposedly-pointed by rivals / competitors offenses. First law, it is therefore a competitor / competitors not to report on investigations of the prosecution, and certainly not when a formal investigation by the prosecutor nor gar nicht eingeleitet wurde.
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) vertritt diese Thesen in ständiger Rechtsprechung (BGH GRUR 1958, 35 (37); BGH GRUR 1962, 34; BGH GRUR 1970, 465; BGH GRUR 1990, 1012) und sie entsprechen auch der gängigen Meinung im Schrifttum (vergleiche statt vieler: Köhler in: Köhler/ Bornkamm, UWG, 28. Auflage 2010, § 4 RN 7.21). Kürzlich hatte das Landgericht Berlin, Kammer für Handelssachen -103 O 163/10-, im Fall der Düsseldorfer Firma
Euroweb Internet GmbH
./.
Julian Kornberger
(Inhaber der Firma: „Ready2host InternetService, 28359 Hansestadt Bremen)
darüber im Zusammenhang decide with statements on the Internet (as of 10/28/2010 together with the injunction application dated 10/18/2010, see HERE).
I. Creation Competition Julian Korn Korn
Julian runs a company that specializes in web hosting on the web. In this capacity, Julian Korn is also host provider of the website: www.blogigo.de. Since both parties are running the hosting of Internet content business, they are under the UWG competitors. Just had already decided the district court of Bremen in the case law (one of the decisions can be found here: http://www.berger-law-koeln.de/aktuelles/Aktuelles-Oktober-2010-Berger-Rechtsanwaelte-in-Koeln.1d786 . php).
Moreover, if, as in the case of the Landgericht Berlin ABOVE-MENTIONED -103/163/10- that assertion, namely that the prosecutor allegedly led investigation into internet system contracts the company Euroweb Internet GmbH, is incorrect is to an injunctive relief also from the general civil law, § § 823 analog and 1004 Civil Code, since it violates the rights to an established and operative business (see: application dated 10.18.2010, page 3).
II liability Julian Korn is as responsible interferers
The liability of the defendant Julian Korn as an individual not as interrupted, that he did not directly but as a director of a foreign company (here: UK Limited registered in England and Wales # 713 482 122 078) acted, for the Limited (Ltd.), like the German limited liability company (LLC) corporately structured so For this reason, the liability of the responsible Directors offered the analogy of a limited liability of the manager and the achievement of legal peace is necessary. There is just no escape in the Limited or Ltd. to promote (as seen here: LG Darmstadt, Judgement of 09.01.2007, 16 O 241/06).
Because Julian Korn www.blogigo.de as a responsible owner of the website, despite pretrial Calls from 08.26.2010 and 14.10.2010 the inaccurate statements of fact do not allow remote, and it promotes further visit (Traffic) of this website and thus the achievement of charges. Accordingly, it is logical and consistent when has now banned the Berlin Regional Court, this anti-competitive driving through the injunction of 28/10/2010. This is even more widespread than the grain by Julian Berger now claims to be diverse and widely cited on the web. A commercially relevant action can be assumed also in this context (: application dated 10.18.2010, page 7, the following comparisons).
III. Basis of liability / entitlement available to grain Berger
is the claim itself available from § § 4 No. 7 and No. 8 or No. 10 UWG:
§ 4 No. 7 UWG is satisfied because it is not a competitor / competitors allowed to noted crime's competitive position. In the present case is complicated by that still no body of law had formally decided to initiate criminal investigations but harbored only a single magistrate a criminal suspect. But must first be considered anti-competitive nature of law (Koehler: Koehler / Bornkamm, unfair competition, 28th edition, § 4 RN 7.26).
§ 4 No. 8 UWG is satisfied because the defendant, Julian has Kornberg, a business-injurious falsehood in relation to the applicant, Euroweb Internet GmbH, a competitor spread.
also § 4 UWG No. 10 is satisfied, because the tolerance impede the dissemination of statements that are very bad for business to a competitor, the latter in its economic development under the Law against Unfair Competition (UWG).
Finally, it appears the alleged omission to claim even the simple fact that the general dissemination of falsehoods independently of a competitive relationship already established a ban request. A consideration to freedom of expression does not occur when false statements of fact underlying.
represents Finally, the question is whether Julian Korn unlike Fred Kaier (see below) of the court restraining order will be obeyed and whether grain Julian Berger of the various (see: http://www.berger-law-koeln.de//aktuelles / News-October-2010-Berger-lawyers-in-Koeln.1d786.php) against him issued decrees banning the right, namely, legitimate to consider consequences.
Ultimately, therefore, indirectly the question of whether similar to the use of the Internet as the use of a motorized vehicle, not a control permit (Internet driver's license) would require. Such a permit could be withdrawn from everyone, the such as repeated several times and notoriously third party rights, in particular competition law, and would run such a permit could also help legitimate claims against anonymous bloggers to enforce. As is known, especially Internet content from the EU countries is difficult and usually impose a disproportionate burden. After all, is the freedom of expression in Article 5 of the Basic Law (GG) was different in Germany than for example in the United States of America (USA) is not granted without restriction, but by virtue of Article 5 paragraph 2 GG its limits in the provisions of general laws, the legal provisions to protect young people and the right to personal Honor.
Breach of an injunction by papers given Wiederholung7. November 2010 @ 13:04
Whether a debtor has violated a court ban expression, determined solely by the contents of the ban on tenor. With respect alone, the text of the decision formula and from it resulting word and sentence meaning. Even without an express statement to the debtor can not escape by any change to the prohibited act or omission ban claim the title. From the scope of the injunction track all actions and claims are recognized, which are regarded as equivalent in transport or that the action or claim described in the tenor im Kern übereinstimmen, die Abweichungen also den Kern der verbotenen Handlung oder Behauptung unberührt lassen.
Bereits das Oberlandesgericht München hatte diese nichtamtlichen Leitsätze in seinem Beschluss vom 01.03.2001, 21 W 3313/00 aufgestellt und das Landgericht Köln hat diese nunmehr im Ordnungsgeldbeschluss vom 15.10.2010, 28 O 35/10, im Fall der Firma
Euroweb Internet GmbH, 40549 Düsseldorf u.a.
gegen
Fred K...
konsequent angewendet.
Der Schuldner Fred K... ist nach eigener Darstellung der verantwortliche Chefredakteur und Herausgeber einer verbraucherschützenden Internetplattform und hat in der Vergangenheit in dieser Funktion verschiedene Reviews and short films about the company Euroweb Internet GmbH published.
The Cologne Regional Court had imposed prior to this final order on the debtor Yellow certain positive obligations in relation to the Euroweb Internet GmbH and its CEO, among others by the same chamber at the temporary injunctions 29.01.2010.
The debtor then authorized the Nuremberg lawyer Stefan Musiol opposition appeal against this. Therefore, it came at the Cologne Regional Court on 17/03/2010 to a hearing, during which Mr. Attorney Musiol in as attorney of the debtor after discussing the situation of law and his appeal waiver the rights under § § 924, 926, 927 ZPO necessarily withdrew. As a consequence, the injunction is in force since then, so that the debtor of the legal costs totaling: 1,462.00 EUR has been imposed in full plus all related claims.
Unimpressed requested lawyer Stefan Musiol in April, exactly 3 weeks after the procedure completed in force, the debtor (retroactively) for legal aid. By order dated 05.06.2010 this was inadmissible - simply because not filed until after the procedure - application rejected by the district court of Cologne. Legal aid (PKH) - formerly known as "legal aid" designated - should be the implementation of court proceedings under § § 114 ZPO following low-income people for financial support. Legal aid in civil cases will be considered if one is a party not in a position to apply the legal fees and court costs for the process. If legal aid is granted to the state. In that regard, it is a special statutory establishment of social assistance in the field of justice.
The debtor maintains on its Internet platform off still, but it has since been the order money order sent from 10/15/2010 to him by injunction from the Landgericht Köln, 28 O 35/10, 29.01.2010 prohibited meaningful claim to uphold. Although he considers this injunction no longer present as documentation in PDF format, for this he has technically connected so that it "does not initially available, ie not for gentle reader is available. Nevertheless, the debtor assumed still to have between him and Mr. Preuss place as CEO of Euroweb Internet GmbH in September 2009 a call. And to say that it is legally banned since 01/29/2010.
This is indicated by the Cologne Regional Court, 28 O 35/10, back in his fine for the decision against the debtor as of 15/10/2010, with special emphasis, if it is on page 4, middle, last paragraph, first sentence reads:
. is, however, assumes that the conversation had taken place with the manager Mr. P., to that extent there is already a violation of the injunction "
It continues in this fine for the decision of 10/15/2010 expressly against the debtor (page 4, bottom, second last sentence):
"The average reader has to come to the conclusion that the debtor continues to say nothing else says and wants than what he was prohibited by the injunction."
It is also stated on page 4, bottom, 5, above:
"By referring it counteracts defeats the purpose of the injunction."
Also, the District Court of Cologne no doubt that the defendant has culpably violated the prohibition of the injunction on 29/01/2010, so that the result on 15.10 .2010 a fine in the amount of 1,000.00 EUR, failing that, two days in jail, was considered inappropriate.
Fred Kaier and Joerg Reinhardt still genuinely believe to be enstgenommen of the judiciary. Completely lacking.
Jörg Reinhardt and Fred Kaier still hope to get for their criminal doings right!
flap unfortunately for the little crook Fred Kaier & Jörg Reinholz not!
Fred Kaier charged only once the Nuremberg lawyer Stefan Musiol.
www.ramusiol.de
How else could it come .....
The Stalker Fred Kaier loses the trial of a reputable Internet company.
And now is the crime of GEIER FRED again to slap!
Following lawyer makes Musiol also been ridiculed before the district court, because it places
PKH-application (legal aid) for Fred Kaier .....
