⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin
Political prisoner, application lodged with the ECtHR, threatened with deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.
Details →Case 2 · Deutsche Post · Registered mail with return receipt · posted 17.08.2026, received 24.08.2026
Annex 195_F2 — The envelope: posting and my receipt on one sheet
The envelope of the registered item with return receipt in which Anton Malkin from Bonn sent me the draft appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde). It bears two of the three dates in this chain on a single sheet:
• Item number RT 50 849 481 3DE (suffix 112 = routing code of Deutsche Post)
• Posted with Deutsche Post: 17.08.2026, fee 6,65 €, marked “REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT”
• My handwritten receipt note: 24.08.2026
The third date in this chain — delivery to Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) on 19.08.2026 — is not recorded on this envelope itself but is established by tracking and the return receipt (161_F2, 174_F2).
Five days passed between proven delivery and my receipt — while the time limit was running.
The item was handed to me only after I sent urgent notifications on 21.08.2026 via five fax routes and two email routes — to Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I), twice to the prison, to the Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives, and to Zossen Local Court (Amtsgericht Zossen). I do not assert a causal connection. I record the sequence of events.
• Item number RT 50 849 481 3DE (suffix 112 = routing code of Deutsche Post)
• Posted with Deutsche Post: 17.08.2026, fee 6,65 €, marked “REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT”
• My handwritten receipt note: 24.08.2026
The third date in this chain — delivery to Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) on 19.08.2026 — is not recorded on this envelope itself but is established by tracking and the return receipt (161_F2, 174_F2).
Five days passed between proven delivery and my receipt — while the time limit was running.
The item was handed to me only after I sent urgent notifications on 21.08.2026 via five fax routes and two email routes — to Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I), twice to the prison, to the Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives, and to Zossen Local Court (Amtsgericht Zossen). I do not assert a causal connection. I record the sequence of events.
Why this sheet matters. Posting, delivery and handing over had previously been recorded in three separate documents: tracking (161_F2), the return receipt (174_F2), and my own note. This envelope bears two of them on one piece of paper — the postal label and receipt note side by side — and thus closes the gap between posting and handing over; delivery within the prison itself remains established by 161_F2/174_F2.
The prison’s response of 25.08.2026 gives visual inspection for prohibited items under § 36 StVollzG Berlin as the reason for the delay and records that there were “no objections whatsoever”. An inspection without any objections thus took five days while a time limit was running.
The prison’s response of 25.08.2026 gives visual inspection for prohibited items under § 36 StVollzG Berlin as the reason for the delay and records that there were “no objections whatsoever”. An inspection without any objections thus took five days while a time limit was running.
The original can be viewed in full above. This page presents the relevant content and does not replace the document. Assessments are identified as such.