Amtsgericht Mayen

Request for the requested dunning notice was very unfriendly.

I was positively surprised by Richter Anhayer. A fair judge.

? : D Mayen district court raises a claim for € 900 I have already filed an objection. Now the decision came. I'm slowly wondering ... why, of all things, I'm always being warned about the games that I've had for years in the original. Note the date ... Damages from 2014. Until May 2017, there was a so-called ban on the use of evidence, where Telekom was NOT allowed to get any data from resellers. So the debt collection company must have obtained my data illegally? but that doesn't interest a court) PKH is generally rejected by me (I obviously have no right to a defense, I also recently noticed in the regional court) Because you get stuck on the travel expenses when you go to court and want to defend yourself. On top of that ... bought 03/21/2013 And then I did ... although the original was available in 2014, offered it illegally on the internet? .... and supposedly ..... about BitTorrent ... which no one has used for 20 years? : D It's just an indictment of how you want to criminalize someone with an IP. In addition, with a procedure that has an error rate of over 50%, and in an age where 11 year olds can hijack you In addition, the public will expose me ... already subordinated to the court (while mind you, until then I only dealt with the court) Should there be a new court date, I will reserve the right to announce this in the stream, after all court hearings are public And I hereby point out to the court as a precaution: The hearing in court, including the announcement of the judgments and resolutions, is generally public in Germany in all legal proceedings. Public means that citizens who are not involved in the process have free access to the court hearings. There has not always been a public in the process. A secret justice system still existed in some cases until the 19th century. The sense of the public is * the control of the administration of justice by the public, * to strengthen citizens' confidence in the administration of justice. I may not be able to afford a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that one can give a shit about my rights. -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Section 101 (9) UrhG: If the information can only be provided using traffic data (Section 3 No. 30 of the Telecommunications Act), a prior judicial order on the admissibility of the use of the traffic data is required for its issuance, which the injured party must apply for. (...) -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Since there was a ban on the use of evidence until May 2017, no judge in the world can have issued an order here, as he would thus violate the Basic Law and make himself criminal -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Personally, I'm looking forward to the next court date ^^ The review tries to delete it, does not make it any better, it raises the highest suspicion that the court has something to hide here and is also frustrated by evidence BTW I am clearly pointing out a criminal act, I hope the court is aware that it has to comply with this. §187 but you should be able to read laws there :) If you have to give yourself, you submit requests to experts that are ignored by the public prosecutor's office in order to protect officials from criminal prosecution. And the burger is supposed to pay € 900 for crimes he has not committed and can clearly prove that ... DAFUQ!

Clear evidence was simply ignored arbitrarily and thus a wrong verdict was spoken.

Very impolite. Paid a total of 100 euros for a dunning notice, forwarded the case to the next court, had a small question and was then puked, according to the motto, what can I think of bothering you with questions ...