Neck Pain The Gets Worse During The Day

injunction (in) essentially Lawyers always win in Germany ....

injunctions: dispute about values. 10 000 € and more

lawyer => legal costs € 1,500 per instance
CONCLUSION: The "prevailing party" pay that is 2 x 1.500 €

court costs: 500 €
CONCLUSION: Costs 1 Instance about 3.500 to 4.00 €


The next instance is even more costs - legal costs about 700 €
legal costs about 2 x 1.500 €


who are the real "winner" of injunctions?


injunctions by way of interim orders are - as far as I know, not the law ... and the risk of repetition where one seeks in vain (except in competition law)


are injunctions - As far as I know - so-called outcome of judicial development of the law. Judicial development of the law is unprofessional words, "Act like" which is adopted in parallel by several (most) judges in the courts and not to be found in the law itself in this form.

There are even the laws and the other - no laws - the so-called judicial legal development.

The judicial development of the law is somehow a kind of "quasi-law", except that this quasi-law usually know again only judges and lawyers, for it is indeed nowhere in the law.


The layman wonders who these "legal development" really benefit and more asks the layman, then what the Basic Law in Article 20 means with the statement "binding in law."

This one would once again know what "right" and what "law" means. Is now "law" that which has the "judicial development of the law" created in addition to the law?


course, there are harsh conditions such as public insults and degrading, which may not remain unpunished and punished. There are as far as I know, the German criminal law .... provides



While a criminal accused of no punishment without guilt, it is different on the Zivilgerichtsweg. This can also be punished, although not accused of guilt exists. Here are the penalties - if one considers the military values and the high legal fees - in effect, even higher.


And instead of encouraging people to solve their disputes by peaceful means, open for lawyers accuse joyful hardly affected, many sufferers, Stark-affected, including the omission affected sham judicial action ......

In criminal proceedings the accused can defend themselves. He can defend himself without counsel.
This is not in injunction proceedings. This lawyer is

In criminal proceedings the accused is questioned only on the allegations, he can take a position, and it takes a lawyer too.
In the injunction proceedings, the accused was "convicted" before he is questioned and then correct the plaintiff and the judge does not like a "criminal case, as many are condemned, without the" offender "really understand why they were ever convicted.


interfere But that no judge and no accuser and no lawyer. Some here have nothing to lose and the others have to win something.


the convicted defendant interferes in. .. Who cares .......


So there is in Germany an enemy communications and, above all lucrative tool for a single winner ............ This

winner never lose ..... no matter whether it is subject to the decision or won.


to him who thinks in this way the President's Men could be bribed.

Many a renegade thinker but this seems to believe and because some ruling gives up some puzzles, and the German Michel sees only hard to see how and why he was actually convicted for now, some people believe in circumstances beyond law and morality. Or should we say "circumstances beyond the law?"


Of course this is wrong, because:


judges and lawyers are "the institutions of justice." Therefore can not be what should not be.

question is the only German Michel, what actually means the term "institutions of justice"??

I think he prefers further still. For as the 15th Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf suspected, there re-offending when I'm in my modified injunction undertaking announcing that I would like to exercise my right to freedom of expression:

Quote: Method I-15 U 303/09 - Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf - decision without a hearing and without any possibility of revision on the basis of § 522 ZPO.

Formerly, when Germany still a democratic country and Germany was proud of his fundamental rights, there was in Germany, nor the right to freedom of expression. It stood and still stands in the Basic Law. may

But as we see here is his fundamental right,

which is in the constitution, do not always use,

because otherwise there is danger of re ....

and the risk of repetition is

far as I know, not the law!

the past, the fundamental rights were the rights of judges and today?