The ban on video calls
Four documents concerning one matter, presented side by side with commentary. The decision itself identifies its trigger: an email to an authority’s press office and the public statement linked in it.
One public statement, three months without video contact with family
On 2 June 2026, I published a public video statement addressing members of parliament. On 12 July 2026, I informed, among others, the press office of the Senate Department for Justice (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz) by email that I had lodged a constitutional complaint; the message contained a link to that statement. On 17 July 2026, I was told orally that my video calls were blocked until 16 October 2026.
This page presents the four documents concerning this matter verbatim, side by side, with commentary.
The decision
Signed “On behalf, Lohmeier”, Heidering prison (JVA Heidering), TAL 1 (komm.). Legal basis: § 30 StVollzG Bln. Ban until 16.10.2026. Information on legal remedies is provided, with a two-week time limit.
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The decision itself identifies its trigger. It relies on an email I sent to an authority’s press office and on the public statement linked in it. The public statement is thus the sanction’s immediate trigger, rather than its background.
The decision also links the ban to my “continuing not to work through the offence” and describes my activity as “self-presentation in public”. I am a journalist; no occupational ban is in place.
What I do not assert: I do not assert that the Senate Department ordered the ban. I demand clarification of when, through whom and with what accompanying note the information reached the prison management. The prison itself documented that such coordination between it and its supervisory authority is not hypothetical: according to its own statement, a “common line was developed” with the Senate Department on 11.08.2025 (Annex 84_F2).
The prison’s statement in the court proceedings
Sent by Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) on 30.07.2026 in proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz; received by me on 05.08.2026 at 19:20. The prison requests dismissal and considers the ban lawful. It enclosed a sentence execution sheet (Vollstreckungsblatt) and the decision of 22.07.2026.
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
The statement describes my use as “misuse”. It identifies no rule that applied on 2 June 2026 and had previously been communicated to me. The decision itself records that I stated at the hearing that I had no knowledge of such a prohibition; neither document contains evidence to the contrary.
On retroactivity: an authority may clarify rules of use for the future. But after an event it cannot formulate a restriction not previously communicated and measure earlier conduct against it.
My final statement
Seven pages, sent by fax at 02:30, transmission confirmed, Fax-ID 17216551. Amended requests: setting aside the decision and immediate restoration of access; in the alternative, a declaration of unlawfulness under § 115 Abs. 3 StVollzG if the matter becomes moot through expiry of time; suspension of execution under § 114 Abs. 2 StVollzG.
Assessment by Dmitry Bagrash
After receiving the written decision, I declared the substantive requests for it to be handed over moot — expressly without withdrawing them. This is not formalism: the prison initially decided orally in these proceedings, and I attach importance to the record continuing to show that the written decision was issued only following an application.
I challenge the proportionality of a three-month complete ban only in the alternative. First, the question of the rule violated must be answered; without it, there is already no basis for treating my conduct retrospectively as misuse. I also suggested obtaining anonymised comparable cases. To my knowledge, I am the only prisoner in this prison on whom a three-month ban has been imposed because of a publication. If that is incorrect, information from the files can disprove it.
The Open Statement of the same day
Sent and published at the same time as the written submission.
Why both go out together
In these proceedings it has repeatedly been disputed whether documents arrive: acknowledgements of receipt were missing, mail reached me without postage or a postmark, announced enclosures were absent, and mail from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the defence arrived opened. The prison stated that incoming and handed-over mail is not logged.
An Open Statement does not replace a legal remedy. But it makes the content and timing of a written submission verifiable independently of what happens to the paper.
How this matter relates to the others
The ban is not an isolated case but the latest point in a series in which public statements and legal remedies are used against me:
- The sentence and reintegration plan justifies refusal of open prison conditions by the “strong focus on the fight against the German justice system” — annotated version.
- The underlying diagnostic assessment bears no signature, identifies no author and, according to its own notice, cannot be challenged in court — annotated version.
- On 31.07.2026, the Regional Court dismissed the application challenging the sentence plan and expressly recorded that it had “not scanned or examined” the documentation I submitted — Chronology No. 178.
- On 12.06.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) established the standard for access to the court registry officer authorised to record applications (Urkundsbeamter) and noted that the prison had “rightly decided” to grant escorted visits immediately and unconditionally in future — Chronology No. 163.