Key legal question
Whether the appeal of 23 January 2009 and the later submission of 3 April 2009 were admissible despite abusive and querulous content.
Extracted holding
The submissions were inadmissible because they were largely repetitive, abusive, and querulous within the meaning of Art. 42(7) BGG.
Extracted reasoning
The filing consisted mainly of already adjudicated arguments and insulting language toward court officials; the court treated this as abuse of process and applied the simplified non-entry procedure.