⚖ 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.

Case 2 · Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz) · file reference III A 2 - 4510-0027/2026/E · case handler Hehmann · dated 14.09.2026, received 22.09.2026

Annex 220_F2 — Senate Department’s response to six submissions: clarification of the video call ban refused, criminal complaint against Wachs still without a result

Open PDF Hehmann dossier → Badenberg dossier →

Consolidated response of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection (Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz), case handler Frau Hehmann, signed “On behalf”, dated 14.09.2026, received by me on 22.09.2026. According to its own wording, the letter combines six submissions “for reasons of economy”:

No.	Submission date	Subject	Submission to Senate	Submission to specialist case handler
1	23.08.2026	Registered item not handed over	25.08.2026	02.09.2026
2	02.09.2026	Press email / criminal complaint	04.09.2026	14.09.2026
3	03.09.2026	Written acknowledgement of receipt	07.09.2026	14.09.2026
4	06.09.2026	Telio	09.09.2026	10.09.2026
5	06.09.2026	Information under IFG Berlin	09.09.2026	10.09.2026
6	10.09.2026	Prognosis of law-abiding conduct / Forum Strafvollzug	10.09.2026	14.09.2026

What this concerns. Points 2 and 6 combine the two requests I sent to the Senate Department by fax on 02.09.2026 (Badenberg dossier, point 6): first, to clarify by which information route Heidering prison (JVA Heidering) learned of the video concerned five days before the ban on my video calls; second, to provide information under § 147 GVG on the status of the criminal complaint I filed in 2024 against Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Klaus-Michael Wachs.

Wording “On points 2 and 6” — on the question of the information route:

“Since you make your activities and the video you mention publicly accessible on the internet, I see no reason to ask Heidering correctional facility (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering) to inform me about the information route. Anyone who googles you can obtain this knowledge within a very short time.”

On the status of the criminal complaint against Wachs, in the same paragraph:

“As regards the status of your criminal complaint against Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Klaus-Michael Wachs, I have forwarded your request to the competent specialist department and am awaiting feedback from there.”

On point 1 (registered item), based solely on the prison’s own account:

“The letter of Heidering correctional facility (Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering) of 09.09.2026 to the Petitions Committee has now also been forwarded to me. On the basis of the account given by Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering, no misconduct by the authority can be identified. … This matter is therefore now considered closed.”

Fact. Between the prison’s own account to the Petitions Committee (09.09.2026), on which point 1 relies, and the drafting of this response (14.09.2026), the order of Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) of 11.09.2026 was issued, case reference 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (Annex 218_F2): the decision of JVA Heidering of 22.07.2026 banning my video calls was set aside as unlawful; the prison bore 9/10 of the costs. The response of 14.09.2026 mentions this order nowhere — not even where it expressly addresses the video information route.

Legal provision. § 151 StVollzG (supervision) · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · Art. 17 GG (right of petition) · § 147 GVG.

Alternative hypothesis. The submission to the specialist case handler for point 2 is dated the same day as the letter (14.09.2026) — three days after the order. It is entirely possible that a case handler dealing with many submissions did not at that time know of a court decision only a few days old under another case reference — especially since, as far as is known here, there is no automated notification route between the Regional Court and the supervisory authority. The wording itself also answers a question, albeit briefly: it denies the need to ask the prison because the information is publicly accessible. That is a substantive position, not mere silence.

What is missing. The question actually asked remains unanswered: not whether information about me is publicly discoverable, but by which specific route JVA Heidering — five days before the ban — learned of the one specific video whose publication it used as the trigger for the decision since set aside. There is likewise no indication whether or how the order of 11.09.2026 was taken into account in deciding to answer the matter with a refusal — or whether any mechanism exists to notify a supervisory authority of a court setting aside action by the prison it supervises before it classifies a matter on the same subject as resolved.

Tone. The wording “no reason… Anyone who googles you can obtain this knowledge within a very short time” answers a substantive question addressed to a supervisory authority by referring to my own public work as a journalist and activist — rather than examining the matter at the prison it supervises. The reader may judge for herself whether to read it as a substantive response or a rejection; I find the wording sufficiently telling to document it verbatim.

Related context. Two requests of 02.09.2026 and proof of transmission: Annex 199_F2 · Video call ban decision, set aside: Annex 218_F2 · Dossier on the matter: The ban on video calls · Dossier on the case handler: Frau Hehmann · Dossier on the Senator: Dr. Felor Badenberg.