What was public before the act
Four dated events, all publicly accessible before there were any proceedings. Including the post referred to in the Russian Federation’s statement before the OSCE — in full, with my explanation of it.
What was public before the act
The judgment of 22.07.2024 explains the motive for the act by saying that my protest had not brought ‘the attention not previously received’. This page sets against that what was publicly accessible in the preceding months — under my name, dated and available to read at any time.
I show the posts in full, including where they harm my case. Anyone wishing to check whether material has been selected should have the whole text before them.
The fire in my vehicle — reported by a third party
On New Year’s night, my Smart burned in the courtyard outside my son’s window. On 2 January 2022, the journalist Sergej Zolovkin publicly reported it and expressly placed the incident in the context of my activities: demonstrations opposite the Bundestag, at the Russian embassy and outside the courthouse in the Tiergarten murder proceedings. He asks whether it was a ‘gift from the Kremlin’s Father Christmas’.
The investigation into this fire was discontinued. Whether and when it was discontinued, I still know only from an oral statement at the trial; I have never received a written decision. I request that the file on this matter be obtained. The indictment lists it as documentary evidence: the final report by LKA 121 of 08.02.2022 on an arson attack on several vehicles, including my Smart.
The route I proposed: a criminal complaint
A few weeks after the war began, I publicly called for a legal group against Kremlin propaganda — together with German lawyers. The post identifies the legal basis, division of work and a contact address.
The photographs of the house on Lepsiusstraße — and the post about it
On 2 March 2022 I drove to the building and took photographs. This is undisputed: a resident spoke to me, photographed me in my vehicle, and that photograph is listed in the indictment as an object of visual inspection. I myself stated this during my questioning on 13.09.2022 — at that time still as a witness.
On 3 March 2022 I published them. Here is the post in full:
I published it on my personal page, under my name, without any reference to Unkremlin e. V. The prosecuting authority also describes it as a post on my ‘personal Facebook page’.
The subject was ownership. According to the cadastral records, the building belongs to the Russian Federation. My demand was and remains that Russian state property in Germany be transferred for the benefit of Ukraine. This is why the post names two people: the lawyer Yuri Shulipa, whom I expressly ask to develop a legal procedure for this, and Aslan Arzuev, a lawyer of Chechen origin practising in Germany.
The sentence at the end, in which I say the address should be noted, was directed to these two addressees and meant noting a property for such proceedings. It was not a call to unknown third parties, still less a call for action against people. I now see that the wording could be misunderstood, and I would word it differently today.
I publish the post here in full, including that sentence. Anyone citing the Russian Federation’s statement before the OSCE of 8 April 2022 against me should be able to read the text to which it refers.
Two circumstances are relevant to the assessment. First: after the war began, the property was repeatedly covered by the German press, which described it as an ‘agents’ villa’ and ‘Putin’s propaganda headquarters’ — that is what the indictment says. The public identification of the property therefore did not come from me alone. Second: six people lived in the house, including a child. This changes nothing about my innocence regarding the device, but it rules out any inflammatory wording, and I refrain from such wording.
The observation at the Congress of People’s Deputies
On 4 November 2022, I travelled as a guest to the first Congress of People’s Deputies in Jabłonna near Warsaw. According to organisers and participants in the forum, a person openly observed me there. On 12 November 2022, I publicly described this and posted a photograph of that person, asking whether anyone recognised them. Seventeen participants are tagged in the post.
After returning, I informed the Staatsschutz (state security police), handed over my vehicle for examination and supplied a photograph of the suspect. The officer responsible confirmed the seriousness of the situation at the trial. Nevertheless, no investigation was opened.
The cell-site records in part 8 of my supplement are incorrectly dated
In part 8 of my supplement to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision), I listed six registrations of my vehicle in the Lepsiusstraße cell and presented them as visits before the period of the act. The indictment gives different dates for the same six registrations:
| According to the indictment |
|---|
| 19 April 2022, 20:36–21:00 |
| 22 April 2022, 22:32–22:55 |
| 23 April 2022, 15:39–15:58 |
| 24 April 2022, 00:15–01:19 |
| 24 April 2022, 07:18–07:50 |
| 1 May 2022, 18:10–18:31 |
Two of these registrations fall in the night when, according to the indictment, the device is said to have been placed, and in the following morning hours. My account in part 8 was incorrect in this respect, and I correct it here.
What remains unchanged: a cell registration establishes that a device was in a sector spanning several hundred metres. It does not establish the presence of a particular person or any action. But the facts are what they are, and I set them out as they are.
Sources for this page
- Facebook posts, public, with dates provided by the platform.
- Public post by Sergej Zolovkin of 02.01.2022.
- Indictment by the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) for the serious-crime trial court of 20.06.2023, file reference 176 Js 4/22 — particularly the sections on objects of visual inspection, identification of the person and cell-site records.
- Parts 1 and 8 of the supplements to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision), declared on the record at the court registry.