Part one
The judgment
Start here with what can be checked without any trust in me: the wording and dates of the judgment itself.
1
The final judgment lacked the list of criminal provisions applied — it was added 373 days later.
Evidence: Judgment of LG Berlin I of 22.07.2024, case reference 522 Ks 5/23 · Addendum of 30.07.2025 · § 260 Abs. 5 StPO
The list of provisions applied required by § 260 Abs. 5 StPO was initially entirely absent from page 2 of the judgment. It was not inserted until 30 July 2025 — after the judgment became final and after the Federal Court of Justice’s decision in May 2025.
My assessmentFor me, a subsequent amendment to the final judgment is at the heart of the allegation of falsification. I make this allegation publicly and in the knowledge that I must answer for it.
2
The device lay unnoticed for thirteen days — and never went off.
Evidence: Judgment of 22.07.2024, findings on the offence · expert report of 02.07.2026 (Annex 115/164_F2)
According to the findings in the judgment, the device was placed on the night of 23 to 24 April 2022 and was not discovered until 6 May 2022. The judgment itself records that it did not go off.
“… as the USBV did not go off.”Judgment of Berlin Regional Court I of 22.07.2024
My assessmentIn my view, a court convicting someone of attempted murder must explain why no one reacted for thirteen days and why the device did not ignite. I cannot find that explanation in the judgment.
3
222 days passed between discovery and arrest.
Evidence: Judgment of 22.07.2024 · Start of detention on 14.12.2022
Discovered on 6 May 2022, arrested on 14 December 2022. More than seven months lie between the allegation of attempted murder and the suspect’s arrest.
My assessmentI consider this sequence incompatible with the assumption that the investigators regarded me as a dangerous violent offender.
Part two
Access to legal protection
What happened afterwards no longer concerns the offence but the question of whether I could challenge the judgment.
4
I was systematically denied access to the Urkundsbeamter der Geschäftsstelle (court registry officer).
Evidence: Annex 84_F2, statement of JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility) of 26.09.2025 · decision of KG Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court) of 12.06.2026 · constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 (Annex 144_F2)
Without the court registry officer, a prisoner cannot lodge an appeal by making a statement on the record. The Kammergericht argued that I could have submitted my documents myself — while declarations in lieu of oath document that I was denied writing materials.
My assessmentThese two statements cannot both be maintained. That is why the matter has been before the Federal Constitutional Court since 10.07.2026.
5
On 11.08.2025, my case was discussed with the Senate Department for Justice, and a common approach was developed there.
Evidence: Annex 84_F2 — JVA Heidering’s statement to the court of 26.09.2025
The sentence appears in an official statement by the prison to the court. It does not originate with me.
“a common approach was developed”JVA Heidering, statement of 26.09.2025 (Annex 84_F2)
My assessmentThe handling of my case was therefore determined not by the prison alone but through coordination with the supervisory authority. For me, this is the point at which individual decisions become a pattern.
6
The prosecutor in my proceedings appears in the parliamentary inquiry report on Breitscheidplatz.
Evidence: Report of the committee of inquiry into the attack at Breitscheidplatz · dossier on this website
This point comes not from me but from a document of a German parliament. It concerns the passing on of inaccurate information by the same senior public prosecutor who also handled my proceedings.
My assessmentIf there is just one place on this website where you want to check whether there is a pattern alleged by someone other than me, it is this one.
Part three
The price of refusal
The part I consider most important: what happens when a convicted person does not confess — and instead publicly seeks legal protection. All five points below come from decisions made in 2026.
7
The sentence plan treats my actions seeking legal protection as a danger — and uses this to justify why I should not be allowed out.
Evidence: Annex 115_F2 — sentence and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit (Moabit Prison) of 17.04.2026, delivered on 24.04.2026 · case reference 599 StVK 215/25 Vollz · unsigned, with no person named as responsible
The document expressly identifies as a risk my intention, after transfer to an open prison regime, to continue my dispute with the justice system and organise further protest actions.
“The risk of misuse arises from the current strong focus on the struggle against the German justice system …”JVA Moabit sentence and reintegration plan, 17.04.2026, page 2 (Annex 115_F2)
My assessmentWhat the document calls a “struggle against the justice system” consists of complaints, petitions, requests for access to case files and press statements — precisely the rights under Art. 19 Abs. 4, Art. 5 and Art. 8 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). My goal is exoneration. The plan treats the means by which exoneration might be achieved as a reason to keep me inside.
8
The same plan states that addressing the offence is not possible because I feel wrongly convicted.
Evidence: Annex 115_F2, page 2
“Addressing the offence is currently not possible, as Mr B. feels wrongly convicted.”JVA Moabit sentence and reintegration plan, 17.04.2026 (Annex 115_F2)
Denial of the offence itself is thus declared an obstacle. Someone who denies the offence cannot carry out the required work on it — and someone who does not carry out that work is not released.
My assessmentFor me, this is the closed circle: the only way out would be a confession. This contradicts the principle that no one may be forced to incriminate themselves.
9
Early release was refused on 24.06.2026. My insistence on my innocence was taken into account in the prognosis.
Evidence: Decision of LG Berlin I — Sentence Enforcement Chamber — of 24.06.2026, case reference 589f StVK 86/26, Judge Lechner · received on 01.07.2026 · sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) on 01.07.2026, now case reference 2 Ws 111/26 (Kammergericht)
“Suspension of the execution of the remainder of the prison sentence on probation is refused.”Operative part of the decision of 24.06.2026, case reference 589f StVK 86/26
Two thirds of the sentence had been served by 5 July 2026; the sentence ends on 14 April 2028. The negative prognosis took into account my conduct in prison, my hunger strikes against blocked access to legal protection, my publications and my insistence on my innocence. At the same time, the Prosecutor General’s Office itself had stated that a full admission of guilt was not an indispensable prerequisite and that denial alone could not support a negative assessment of prospects for social reintegration.
My assessmentBoth statements stand side by side: a confession is said not to be mandatory — yet refusal is still used against my freedom. This is precisely where it became apparent to me that these are political proceedings.
10
After my video address to the Bundestag, my video calls were banned for three months — with a written justification that they endangered my rehabilitation.
Evidence: Annex 146_F2, declaration in lieu of oath of 17.07.2026 · Annex 152_F2, written decision of JVA Heidering of 22.07.2026, ban until 16.10.2026
On 17.07.2026 at 11:30, the unit head informed me orally of the ban; no legal basis was given when I asked. The written decision followed only after the measure had been implemented. It bases the ban on my having used the video function for a public statement — assessed as use for an improper purpose and as public self-presentation that, according to the decision, endangered my rehabilitation because I continued not to address the offence for which I had been convicted.
My assessmentThis is the point to which I particularly draw journalists’ attention: there is a written administrative decision imposing sanctions for a public political statement and expressly justifying this by the failure to acknowledge the offence. It documents both the sanction and its reason at the same time.
11
Three days after the sentence plan was delivered, the immigration authority initiated expulsion proceedings.
Evidence: Hearing letter from the State Office for Immigration of 27.04.2026 · my submissions of 19.05.2026 and 08.07.2026 (Annex 147_F2, 165_F2)
The sentence plan was delivered to me on 24.04.2026; the hearing letter concerning intended expulsion is dated 27.04.2026 — one day before I applied for a judicial decision against the sentence plan. The destination state would be Russia: the state that designated my association Unkremlin e.V. as an “undesirable organisation” in September 2023.
My assessmentDeportation there would put my life at risk. I therefore call it deportation to death. I do not consider it a coincidence that these proceedings begin at precisely the moment when I challenge the sentence plan — but I cannot prove it, and therefore put it forward as my suspicion, not as a fact.