Court or headquarter of scammers IV?

If those involved are convicted of criminal acts, there are no limits ot their imagination. Your submitted complain will be suppressed by the those involved.

Since Martin Meermann and Michael Bauer from the "court" in Wismar (Former GDR) are still trying to cover it up, you contact the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice informs you that a Ms. Baenz is responsible.

You present Ms. Baenz with evidence that your decisive appeal to the "local court" has disappeared again.

She tries to circumvent the law with deception too.

Once mor, the point is that your appeal to the "local court" is disapperared.

This is what Ms. Baenz writes to you ("not tangible ").

Proof (see below): MV56

In Germany, you have the right and it is also stipulated by law that the next higher court, in this case Schwerin District Court, is responsible for your appeal.

Ms. Baenz (district court of Schwerin) was contacted immediately and she was made aware that the appeal court (district court) had to decide on the appeal and that she had to take care of it immediately. This is of the highest priority and has nothing to do with the rest. Apart from that, you are prohibited by law from getting involved in any "negotiations" etc.

(Note: The said "procedure" at the "local court" is demonstrably a botch, illegal and without any legitimacy and any legal basis.)

Mrs. Baenz, District Court of Schwerin (Former GDR), who actually is responsible for your appeal, would now like to send your letter to the first instance (local court).

Proof: MV59

Martin Meermann is the director of the local court. Sigrun Meermann at the district court is the wife of Martin Meermann.

Then the participants remain silent for weeks. The background is that your documents have again been withheld from the "Local Court". You contact the responsible Ministry of Justice again. Then you will receive the following letter from a person named Kunisch from the distirct court:

Proof: MV60

(MV60: This person would have asked for the file to be sent to him)

The impression is created that the file is to be ordered in order to be able to cover up the processes better. Then you get a letter from Ms. Baenz with the same nonsens:

Proof: MV61

(MV61: She writes: there are no aspects that give rise to regulatory or other measures).

You contact the President of the District Court of Schwerin (Monika Köster-Flachsmeyer) again and tell her that your decision-relevant appeal has been suppressed und that she, the district court, ist responsible.

Ms. Monika Köster-Flachsmeyer and Ms. Baenz do not want to "answer".

Proof: MV62

Who would want to get involved with such people and “courts”?