⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin
Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Case 2 · Declaration in lieu of oath (eidesstattliche Versicherung), part 2 · signed 30.08.2026
Annex 193_F2 — the witness who travelled from Bonn twice and was never questioned on the intended subject
Signed on 30.08.2026. 33 points in eight sections, subject to the criminal penalty provided by § 156 StGB. The subject comprises events during the investigation and trial for which no official record has been made accessible to me.
I. Cooperation since 2020. After my first continuous demonstration opposite the Russian Embassy in September 2020, lasting nine weeks, I met Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder. With my permission he used a programme I had written for countering the threat from the Russian Federation when drafting a cross-party coalition paper. Since then I maintained an ongoing professional exchange with him.
II. Visits in custody. They all took place under police observation. The witness repeatedly offered the officers present comprehensive information about my activities. To my knowledge, he was never examined throughout the entire investigation.
III. The first examination at trial. Asked about the frequency of contact from March to May 2022, the witness took out his mobile phone in the courtroom, opened the message history and told the court we had communicated practically every other day. Immediately afterwards, Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs intervened and referred to an interview with the witness published online. From that point onwards, the questions concerned what the witness knew about my proceedings and how, rather than my activities.
IV. The second examination. The witness again travelled specially from Bonn, this time with a lawyer. After an answer to a single question, the presiding judge said he had no further questions. The witness spent no more than about five minutes in the courtroom that day.
As a result, the witness was questioned about none of the matters for which he had been summoned — neither the coordination of my public activities, nor their content, their legality or the reactions they provoked.
V. to VII. The ban on searching for witnesses in my own seized mobile phone (April 2023); the arson attack on my vehicle in January 2022 and the compromise of my WhatsApp account in May 2022; and the spring 2022 campaign — two model letters to Federal Chancellor Scholz and Member of the European Parliament Lagodinsky, which anyone could fill in, sign and send for 85 cents in postage.
I. Cooperation since 2020. After my first continuous demonstration opposite the Russian Embassy in September 2020, lasting nine weeks, I met Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder. With my permission he used a programme I had written for countering the threat from the Russian Federation when drafting a cross-party coalition paper. Since then I maintained an ongoing professional exchange with him.
II. Visits in custody. They all took place under police observation. The witness repeatedly offered the officers present comprehensive information about my activities. To my knowledge, he was never examined throughout the entire investigation.
III. The first examination at trial. Asked about the frequency of contact from March to May 2022, the witness took out his mobile phone in the courtroom, opened the message history and told the court we had communicated practically every other day. Immediately afterwards, Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs intervened and referred to an interview with the witness published online. From that point onwards, the questions concerned what the witness knew about my proceedings and how, rather than my activities.
IV. The second examination. The witness again travelled specially from Bonn, this time with a lawyer. After an answer to a single question, the presiding judge said he had no further questions. The witness spent no more than about five minutes in the courtroom that day.
As a result, the witness was questioned about none of the matters for which he had been summoned — neither the coordination of my public activities, nor their content, their legality or the reactions they provoked.
V. to VII. The ban on searching for witnesses in my own seized mobile phone (April 2023); the arson attack on my vehicle in January 2022 and the compromise of my WhatsApp account in May 2022; and the spring 2022 campaign — two model letters to Federal Chancellor Scholz and Member of the European Parliament Lagodinsky, which anyone could fill in, sign and send for 85 cents in postage.
What this affirmation expressly does NOT claim — as stated in points 13, 31 and 32:
• Point 13: The affirmation solely confirms that the witness made that statement about the residents of a property on Leipziger Straße. It does not affirm that this information is correct.
• Point 31: It does not claim that Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs prohibited the witness’s examination. The affirmation solely confirms that the witness repeatedly declared his readiness to testify and was nevertheless not examined.
• Point 32: It does not claim that the vehicle fire and account compromise were instigated by particular persons or bodies.
• Point 15: To protect the persons concerned, the names of employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) and the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) are not reproduced — including where they were mentioned in a public hearing. Confidential information may still be given to a court or prosecuting authority.
• Point 13: The affirmation solely confirms that the witness made that statement about the residents of a property on Leipziger Straße. It does not affirm that this information is correct.
• Point 31: It does not claim that Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs prohibited the witness’s examination. The affirmation solely confirms that the witness repeatedly declared his readiness to testify and was nevertheless not examined.
• Point 32: It does not claim that the vehicle fire and account compromise were instigated by particular persons or bodies.
• Point 15: To protect the persons concerned, the names of employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) and the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) are not reproduced — including where they were mentioned in a public hearing. Confidential information may still be given to a court or prosecuting authority.
Place in the overall context. Part 1 of the affirmation (Annex 192_F2) concerns the final statement and the visit in custody in September 2024. The witness’s role is placed in context in the section The witness who travelled from Bonn twice. The discharge of two appointed defence counsel on 12.09.2024: Chronology No. F2-001.