Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Suspected plagiarism involving Justice Senator Dr. Felor Badenberg
In August 2026, detailed allegations of plagiarism were made against Berlin's Justice Senator. The University of Cologne is examining them; there is no result yet. This page is concerned with equal standards rather than a premature assessment of her dissertation: in my own sentence and reintegration plan, my intention to make public the names and photographs of people acting in an official capacity was used as an argument against open prison conditions.
What this page is — and what it is not
This page does not assert that Senator Dr. Felor Badenberg falsified her dissertation. The University of Cologne is currently examining that question; no result is available. Instead, the page documents a temporal and thematic connection that remains relevant regardless of the outcome of the Cologne examination: public scrutiny of officials is a legitimate concern protected by Art. 5 GG — and precisely such an intention was used against me as a risk factor in my own proceedings.
Until the Cologne examination is complete, this page does not state: “Badenberg plagiarised”, “Badenberg is a plagiarist” or “the doctorate was obtained fraudulently”. What is permissible and documentarily accurate is: Stefan Weber documented 83 suspected passages; an independent expert commissioned by the press considers 32 of them convincing; the University of Cologne is examining the matter at Badenberg's own request; the result is pending.
The substantiated thesis of this page is therefore not “the plagiarising senator is persecuting the person exposing her” — that is not established. What can be substantiated is that the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Berlin Senate Department for Justice) must explain why the documented intention to name officials publicly became a negative prognostic factor in my sentence plan, while the principle rightly applied to the highest office within its own department is independent examination, an open outcome and public debate.
What the publications establish
Note on assessing Stefan Weber's allegation itself: The same LTO reporting used here as a source points out that Weber has repeatedly made plagiarism allegations against politicians shortly before elections (including against Thuringian Minister-President Mario Voigt, commissioned by the AfD parliamentary group), and that the quality of his reports in such cases is disputed. This page does not adopt Weber's list without scrutiny, but relies on Zenthöfer's independent assessment.
Annex 137_F2 — documented four months before publication
On 17.04.2026 — four months before Weber's publication — Justizvollzugsanstalt Moabit (Moabit Prison) prepared a diagnostic assessment under § 8 StVollzG Bln (Annex 137_F2), based on an exploratory interview of 13.03.2026. In the section “Own treatment goals / motivation”, the document records:
This is an officially documented, dated fact, not a later assertion. Elsewhere in the same document (the section “Findings from prison detention”), a separate point, not linked to the sentence above, records:
For accuracy: These two passages appear in different parts of the same document and are not textually linked. It is not documented that the announcement of publication of “real names and photographs” related specifically to Badenberg's dissertation. What is established is that both facts — examination of the Justice Senator's doctoral dissertation and willingness to name officials publicly — were known to the prison on 13.03.2026 and recorded in writing.
In the official sentence and reintegration plan of the same day (Annex 115_F2), the intention to publish names and photographs of people acting in an official capacity is expressly cited as an element of the “risk of abuse” against transfer to open prison conditions — although I have not committed a single disciplinary offence.
The standards by which the Senate Department should be judged
- What specific statement by Dmitry Bagrash about publishing names and photographs was used in Annex 115_F2, and by whom, when and in what form was it recorded?
- Was a specific intention to act unlawfully established, or was lawful journalistic public communication classified as a threat?
- What standard is applied to a prisoner's public scrutiny of officials, compared with the standard applied to the politically responsible senator herself (independent examination, an open outcome, public debate)?
- Are hunger strikes, complaints and the use of legal protection still assessed as signs of negative “reactivity” in prison prognoses?
- What complete diagnostic material (12.03.2026) and conference record (13.03.2026) can be submitted to the committee for examination?
Summary suitable for quotation
In August 2026, detailed allegations of plagiarism were made against Berlin's Justice Senator, Dr. Felor Badenberg. The University of Cologne is examining the dissertation; no final result is available. For my case, the decisive issue is equal transparency standards rather than a premature assessment of her dissertation: in my sentence plan, my intention to publish names and photographs of people acting in an official capacity was used as an argument against open prison conditions. Parliament should clarify whether lawful public documentation and the use of legal protection were reinterpreted as a personal risk characteristic.
Supporting evidence
| Source | Date | Content |
|---|---|---|
| LTO — Legal Tribune Online | 20.08.2026 | Report with assessment by Jochen Zenthöfer (32/40/11) |
| Stefan Weber, plagiatsgutachten.com | 19.08.2026 | Initial publication of the 83 suspected passages |
| Tagesschau | 20.08.2026 | Badenberg has her dissertation examined following plagiarism allegations |
| ZDFheute | 21.08.2026 | Reporting on the allegations |
| Annex 137_F2 | 17.04.2026 | JVA Moabit diagnostic assessment — examination of the dissertation, real names/photographs |
| Annex 115_F2 | 17.04.2026 | Sentence and reintegration plan — reasoning on risk of abuse |