Trims And Fabric Nj Area

RIAG Ronsdorf and no end - rejection in the cost of

"The fee does not apply to withdrawal of the appeal before the expiry of the term justification." This is what No 3131 of costs directory of legal costs law. Is indeed not very difficult interpretierungsbedürftig the sentence.

have it now but managed only three people - two officials from the district attorney costs Görlitz and now also the District Auditor on LG Görlitz In his opinion - ignore this simple sentence. As described in the last posting, we need to experience that on a regular basis despite withdrawal of the appeal before the expiry of the period Justification an illegal fee under the 3130 or 3131 points will be set. In all cases where we were but were confronted with could be the prosecutor in the end persuaded that the cause in each case but was quite simple and here there is no room for interpretation.

Not so, however, in Görlitz. And now this question is actually the AG Zittau for decision. And who is responsible ? Once again, the judge of the District Court Ronsdorf that the underlying criminal proceedings "in charge" already on his very special way.

We remember that the last contact of the defendant, Andreas Reuter, with RIAG Ronsdorf was held on 14.12.2007 - on this day Ronsdorf escaped in a "coup" to be named the overall defense authorization act (the later by the LG Görlitz was re-issued), prevented any kind of suspension or even break and sentenced the defendant a few minutes later. The "law" was absent, the whole operation felt bad in black and white. The prosecution presented to prevent an appeal on their part an appeal, since "an appeal of the prosecution could have intended to protect the magistrate" !

Well, then again Ronsdorf. And of course the re rejection of it. In the previous challenge procedure, there was the whole team at AG Zittau very resistant to the law on "suspicion of partiality," the recent rejection of the request completed the challenged judge Ronsdorf equal itself, in which he (apparently illegal already, as go into the substantive analysis ) as inadmissible and therefore qualified to judge and made things.

is now the District Court again on the course, first RIAG Ronsdorf is his official opinion from leave. Since we are curious ...

Trims And Fabric Nj Area

RIAG Ronsdorf and no end - rejection in the cost of

"The fee does not apply to withdrawal of the appeal before the expiry of the term justification." This is what No 3131 of costs directory of legal costs law. Is indeed not very difficult interpretierungsbedürftig the sentence.

have it now but managed only three people - two officials from the district attorney costs Görlitz and now also the District Auditor on LG Görlitz In his opinion - ignore this simple sentence. As described in the last posting, we need to experience that on a regular basis despite withdrawal of the appeal before the expiry of the period Justification an illegal fee under the 3130 or 3131 points will be set. In all cases where we were but were confronted with could be the prosecutor in the end persuaded that the cause in each case but was quite simple and here there is no room for interpretation.

Not so, however, in Görlitz. And now this question is actually the AG Zittau for decision. And who is responsible ? Once again, the judge of the District Court Ronsdorf that the underlying criminal proceedings "in charge" already on his very special way.

We remember that the last contact of the defendant, Andreas Reuter, with RIAG Ronsdorf was held on 14.12.2007 - on this day Ronsdorf escaped in a "coup" to be named the overall defense authorization act (the later by the LG Görlitz was re-issued), prevented any kind of suspension or even break and sentenced the defendant a few minutes later. The "law" was absent, the whole operation felt bad in black and white. The prosecution presented to prevent an appeal on their part an appeal, since "an appeal of the prosecution could have intended to protect the magistrate" !

Well, then again Ronsdorf. And of course the re rejection of it. In the previous challenge procedure, there was the whole team at AG Zittau very resistant to the law on "suspicion of partiality," the recent rejection of the request completed the challenged judge Ronsdorf equal itself, in which he (apparently illegal already, as go into the substantive analysis ) as inadmissible and therefore qualified to judge and made things.

is now the District Court again on the course, first RIAG Ronsdorf is his official opinion from leave. Since we are curious ...

Monte Blanc Store In Jacksonville

unduly raised examination fee

In the process, the conscientious shot from Andreas Reuter, it is still continuing. Briefly on the state of things in the opinion of the District Court Görlitz from last September: The

been appealed, we have withdrawn on 21.10.2008 . This is less because there would have been at the judgment about criticizing anything legal - it might very well, namely in particular the implementation of the appeal itself, although it has been shown to act a (illegal) blocking appointment of public prosecutors. The danger, however, that on this issue, to the so far little case law exists, the Higher Regional Court Dresden would comment negatively, we have judged to be too large and will therefore continue to work up the way the whole process instead of the legal and legal policy literature. Some appeared here already, other papers are currently in the process of creation - we are on this later published in a list (see verdict in the "More information about the process" about the article in 2 / 08 (Journal of the judges and public prosecutors in the ver.di)).

Now the process is but another "Fun" section. The Treasury has opened its account - And would like to make a charge for an appeal on a charge of 240 EUR. Regard, it relies on the cost directory of legal costs law , No. 3130, and quoted these numbers even themselves "fee for audit procedures by order or decision." Well, it was in the revision process, a decree or order? No. In such a case, a (then: half) No fee for 3131 will be due, but not "taking back the revision prior to the submission of grounds." So it is but here - a fee may not therefore be taken into account.

One might think, well, there's the prosecutor made a small mistake undermined, it could happen once, since one then points on it, and so should the matter be settled. Unfortunately - far from it.

is the one it is clear that system. In three cases, in which the defenders were active in the current proceedings in cases other than defense and placed well at a certain time for a revision, it was withdrawn before the expiration of the reasons of appeal period, was later used by the public prosecutor of the fees referred to in paragraphs . 3130 or 3131 brought in approach and could be down again removed from the world only on appeal. The cases were also spread over the country (StA Hamburg; StA Dresden, StA Amberg; Now: StA Görlitz). It can only be assumed that the Treasury here actually tried in a really bad faith always to charge this fee, even if they do not become due, most defenders are then in the process no longer directly involved, and accused the bills eh more of a closed book, so that probably rarely oppose - and operates the state treasury in this manner, a profitable business.

Second, we have the so-called appeal of the "memory" is now out noted that the review fee is not to bring in approach. In response, the prosecutor the costs listed fine again - by repeating the examination fee collected inadmissible, for submission to the District Auditor and for forwarding to the district court to rule on the appeal. Again, we have once again taken in addition position and pointed out that a judicial decision must be because the prosecution could correct the bill simply (another minor problem that is also still been in the financial statements, but which is almost negligible ).

remains to be seen whether the district attorney really on their (absurd) position persists when, who's the infamous AG Zittau have to decide if this is about ... to experience

Monte Blanc Store In Jacksonville

unduly raised examination fee

In the process, the conscientious shot from Andreas Reuter, it is still continuing. Briefly on the state of things in the opinion of the District Court Görlitz from last September: The

been appealed, we have withdrawn on 21.10.2008 . This is less because there would have been at the judgment about criticizing anything legal - it might very well, namely in particular the implementation of the appeal itself, although it has been shown to act a (illegal) blocking appointment of public prosecutors. The danger, however, that on this issue, to the so far little case law exists, the Higher Regional Court Dresden would comment negatively, we have judged to be too large and will therefore continue to work up the way the whole process instead of the legal and legal policy literature. Some appeared here already, other papers are currently in the process of creation - we are on this later published in a list (see verdict in the "More information about the process" about the article in 2 / 08 (Journal of the judges and public prosecutors in the ver.di)).

Now the process is but another "Fun" section. The Treasury has opened its account - And would like to make a charge for an appeal on a charge of 240 EUR. Regard, it relies on the cost directory of legal costs law , No. 3130, and quoted these numbers even themselves "fee for audit procedures by order or decision." Well, it was in the revision process, a decree or order? No. In such a case, a (then: half) No fee for 3131 will be due, but not "taking back the revision prior to the submission of grounds." So it is but here - a fee may not therefore be taken into account.

One might think, well, there's the prosecutor made a small mistake undermined, it could happen once, since one then points on it, and so should the matter be settled. Unfortunately - far from it.

is the one it is clear that system. In three cases, in which the defenders were active in the current proceedings in cases other than defense and placed well at a certain time for a revision, it was withdrawn before the expiration of the reasons of appeal period, was later used by the public prosecutor of the fees referred to in paragraphs . 3130 or 3131 brought in approach and could be down again removed from the world only on appeal. The cases were also spread over the country (StA Hamburg; StA Dresden, StA Amberg; Now: StA Görlitz). It can only be assumed that the Treasury here actually tried in a really bad faith always to charge this fee, even if they do not become due, most defenders are then in the process no longer directly involved, and accused the bills eh more of a closed book, so that probably rarely oppose - and operates the state treasury in this manner, a profitable business.

Second, we have the so-called appeal of the "memory" is now out noted that the review fee is not to bring in approach. In response, the prosecutor the costs listed fine again - by repeating the examination fee collected inadmissible, for submission to the District Auditor and for forwarding to the district court to rule on the appeal. Again, we have once again taken in addition position and pointed out that a judicial decision must be because the prosecution could correct the bill simply (another minor problem that is also still been in the financial statements, but which is almost negligible ).

remains to be seen whether the district attorney really on their (absurd) position persists when, who's the infamous AG Zittau have to decide if this is about ... to experience