Incomplete transmission of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) documents before the two-thirds review and a renewed complaint of violation of the right to be heard

JVA Heidering / Großbeeren, 18 June 2026 — To the Berlin Regional Court I, Chamber for the Execution of Criminal Sentences. Az. 589 StVK 86/26

I. Complaint of incomplete transmission and violation of the right to be heard

The Prosecutor General’s Office requests refusal to suspend the remainder of the sentence and expressly relies on the JVA statement of 07.05.2026 — yet I do not have that very statement. A hearing on 24.06.2026 at which I am expected to comment on documents not fully known to me would violate the right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG and Art. 6 EMRK. If the hearing proceeds on this basis, it is no longer a genuine hearing consistent with the rule of law, but a procedural farce with procedural violations built in from the outset.

II. No sound prognosis without knowledge of the JVA statement

Under § 57 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 StGB, the prognosis must be based on specific, current facts concerning the individual case. In the part sent to me, the Prosecutor General’s Office uses only general wording without communicating a specific factual basis. I cannot examine whether the JVA relies on actual incidents, mere assessments or my actions seeking legal protection.

III. Well-founded suspicion of deliberate withholding

Given that comparable incomplete transmission of documents has already occurred repeatedly in my proceedings, I have a well-founded suspicion that material documents were deliberately not made available to me in time.

IV. Continued reinterpretation of seeking legal protection as dangerousness

My alleged “offences” actually consist of requesting access to files, demanding access to the court registry officer who records procedural declarations (Urkundsbeamten), preparing supplements to an appeal on points of law (Revision) and constitutional complaints, lodging complaints, seeking contact with the Jewish Community (Jüdische Gemeinde) and publicly documenting State action. This is not criminal conduct — it is seeking legal protection. If this very conduct is used to justify an adverse prognosis, effective legal protection itself is sanctioned.

V. Organised character of the restriction of access

Annex 84_F2 documents that JVA Heidering discussed my access to the registry official with the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) and developed a “common approach”. My conduct in seeking legal protection was thus discussed, assessed and directed at institutional level.

VI. No compulsion to confess

I continue to deny guilt and will not remain silent to obtain freedom. Freedom at the price of my silence and acceptance of a judgment that I consider wrong is no freedom to me.

IX. Declaration in lieu of oath (Eidesstattliche Versicherung)

I affirm in lieu of oath that on 17.06.2026 only three sheets printed on one side were handed to me: the covering letter from LG Berlin I of 15.06.2026 and two pages from the Prosecutor General’s Office. The JVA statement of 07.05.2026 mentioned in them was not enclosed, nor was any decision on the request for press access.