Day   in custody This documentation is produced from Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering (Heidering correctional facility). I cannot send materials by post from here — every transmission is by fax through third parties. What the justice system writes about me →
Status of proceedings — 08.09.2026
Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a case reference signifies an entry in the register of proceedings, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a case reference · no decision on the criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026; the presumption of innocence applies · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz made on time on 09.09.2026 and recorded by the court registry officer (the matter) · the ban on video calls of 22.07.2026 was set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on the matter) · the criminal complaint against a fellow prisoner with StA Potsdam (Potsdam Public Prosecutor's Office) under 496 Js 34084/26 is being processed.
⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin

Political prisoner, complaint filed with the EGMR (European Court of Human Rights), facing deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.

Details →
Starting pointsHouse of RepresentativesJournalistsParliamentariansPetitions CommitteeLawyers and legal professionalsHuman rightsCriminal prosecution← Home
Petition to the Petitions Committee of the Berlin House of Representatives

I did not commit the offence. The judgment against me was manipulated.

That is my position — and I name names. You do not have to believe a word of it.

Exercising the right of petition has documented adverse consequences

The Berlin right of petition is based on the principle that no one may suffer a disadvantage from exercising it. In this case, the disadvantage is dated, quantified and explained in writing. This page is also the petition itself — ready to print, with the same numbering as the submitted version.

As of 12.09.2026 · Background

Domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. On 18.08.2026, the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) dismissed my sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) against the refusal of early release (2 Ws 111/26). No further appeal is available.

The addendum to this petition introducing the Kammergericht decision was transmitted with it on 01.09.2026. My requests nos. 3, 4 and 6 in Block 7 address precisely the question that no court has examined.

Evidence: Dossier on the constitutional complaint · Transmission reports · Chronology archive

Three pages for parliament — three different roles
  • House of Representatives — the connection
    Eight dated stages, the BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office) expert report from the judgment, and the question of a committee of inquiry. If you read only one of these pages, read this one.
  • Parliamentarians — five findings
    The short version for elected representatives in the Bundestag and Berlin House of Representatives: five matters concerning whether legal remedies function, without addressing the question of guilt.
  • Petitions Committee — the petition itself ← You are here
    The formal text: 30 findings, 11 requests, with the provision of PetG Bln that gives the Committee the power for each point. Ready to print.
The underlying documents are the same. What differs is what is being asked: the connection, a brief overview or a formal request with a legal basis.
In custody since
14.12.2022
Judgment
5 years 4 months, final since 08.05.2025
Pending
Complaint to the BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court) (10.07.2026) · Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) to the KG (deadline 11.09.2026)
Expulsion proceedings
initiated 27.04.2026, no decision
This petition
[to be added once sent by fax — date and transmission report to follow]
Submitted — receipt documented

This petition was received on 01.09.2026 at 18:17 by fax by the Petitions Committee of the Berlin House of Representatives: 23 pages, transmission OK. The full petition text, the addendum to the Kammergericht decision of 18.08.2026 and both declarations in lieu of oath were transmitted.

Copies for information reached: the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on 01.09.2026 at 18:16 (21 pages, OK), the Senate Department for Justice on 02.09.2026 via both numbers (23 pages each, OK), and the President of the House of Representatives on 02.09.2026 at 18:29 (17 pages, OK).

Transmission reports: Annex 198_F2 (01.09.2026) · Annex 199_F2 (02.09.2026). An acknowledgement of receipt with a case reference has not yet been received and will be added here.

Block 0

What I am not requesting

This petition does not ask the Committee

  • to review or overturn the judgment of Berlin Regional Court I of 22.07.2024,
  • to intervene in pending court proceedings — the Committee is prohibited from doing so under § 10 Abs. 2 PetG Bln, and I expressly do not request it,
  • to replace a court or answer a question of guilt.

I request scrutiny of administrative action, supervisory conduct and concluded matters. For each point, I identify the provision of the Petitions Act that gives the Committee the relevant power.

Block 1

What this is about — in five sentences

I have been in custody since 14.12.2022 and deny committing the offence for which I was convicted on 22.07.2024. This petition does not concern the question of guilt.

It concerns an interconnected course of events, not an isolated detail: my political activity against the Putin regime was suppressed before my arrest on the instructions of the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office (Senior Public Prosecutor Raupach, seizure of the “Putin is a Killer” banner, 17.09.2021 — documented under Background to the persecution). After my arrest, I publicly stated — using my full name and accepting criminal responsibility for false declarations in lieu of oath — that, in my conviction, Presiding Regional Court Judge Groß and Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs had committed criminal acts. This statement, also addressed to the German Bundestag, prompted sanctions rather than scrutiny: on 17.07.2026, JVA Heidering banned my video contact for three months — according to the prison management’s own statement, expressly because of this video address.

The Berlin right of petition is based on the principle that no one may suffer a disadvantage through exercising this right. In my case, the disadvantage is dated, quantified and explained in writing.

The subject of this petition is therefore the Committee’s own concern.

Block 1b

The report of wrongdoing — and the response to it

At its core, this entire website is a publicly documented report of interconnected circumstances — not a collection of isolated complaints. Its starting point is the video address of 02.06.2026, recorded from prison:

In it, I explain in detail where, in my conviction, the judgment of 22.07.2024 departs from its own findings documented in the judgment itself, and make specifically reasoned allegations against Judge Groß and Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs.

What this petition is — and what it is not:

  • It is not a request to examine or assess the allegations against Judge Groß and OStA Wachs made in the video — that is the task of the prosecution authorities, not the Petitions Committee.
  • It is a request to examine JVA Heidering’s own administrative action: the imposition of sanctions for an expression of opinion addressed to the public and the Bundestag, instead of a substantive response to the allegations made in it.

This matter does not stand alone. It is the latest stage in a chain that begins with political activity before charges were brought (Group A0 below) and runs through the entire proceedings: anyone who speaks publicly or seeks legal protection finds this counted against them in their own prognosis for sentence enforcement.

Block 2

The circumstances — 30 findings

Tap to expand. Each point: fact · evidence · provision · what does not add up · action for scrutiny · legal basis.

Group A0 — political background and the report of wrongdoing
A0-01 · Political activity suppressed on the prosecution service’s instructions before charges were brought
Evidence: Seizure of the “Putin is a Killer” banner on 17.09.2021 outside the Russian embassy, on the direct instructions of Senior Public Prosecutor Raupach — documented under Background to the persecution.
What does not add up: Public political criticism of the Putin regime, conducted under one’s own name, was suppressed by the same authority that later brought the charges.
Action for scrutiny: Consideration of this matter as context for the subsequent sanctions for public statements.
§ 10 Abs. 1 PetG Bln
A0-02 · Public report alleging criminal acts by Judge Groß and OStA Wachs — sanctions instead of a substantive response
Evidence: Video address of 02.06.2026 (see above); ban on video calls imposed on 17.07.2026 by JVA Heidering, according to the prison management’s own statement expressly because of this video address.
What does not add up: When the ban was imposed, not a word was said about the substance of the allegations; written reasons with information on legal remedies were initially not provided.
Action for scrutiny: Information from the Senate Department for Justice on the legal basis on which an expression of opinion addressed to the Bundestag can be made the basis for a communications ban.
Addendum of 19.09.2026: By decision of 11.09.2026 (595 StVK 126/26 Vollz), Berlin Regional Court I set aside as unlawful the notice of 22.07.2026 based on this ban — the court held that there had been no sound legal basis. dossier on the matter.
§ 10 Abs. 1, Abs. 4 PetG Bln
Group A — judgment and appeal process
A-01 · The judgment lacked the list of provisions applied; it was inserted 373 days later
Evidence: Judgment of 22.07.2024; correction order of 30.07.2025, received on 07.08.2025.
Provision: § 260 Abs. 5 StPO; correction after pronouncement only in the event of an obvious clerical or pronouncement error.
What does not add up: The insertion took place after the judgment became final and 84 days after the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). The order contained no notice of appeal rights.
Action for scrutiny: Production of the correction file together with the direction issued.
§ 10 Abs. 1 PetG Bln
A-02 · The appeal against this order was not submitted to the appellate court but sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office
Evidence: Appeal of 26.08.2025; letter from the Regional Court of 23.09.2025.
Provision: § 306 Abs. 2 Halbs. 2 StPO — submission “immediately, no later than before the expiry of three days”.
What does not add up: This is not a delay but a referral to a different body.
Action for scrutiny: Information on when and to whom the matter was forwarded.
§ 10 Abs. 1 PetG Bln
A-03 · The Kammergericht declared the duty to submit the matter to have no consequences
Evidence: Decision of 31.10.2025, 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25 (Annex 82_F2): § 306 Abs. 2 Halbs. 2 StPO was “merely a ‘should’ provision (Sollvorschrift) … which has no direct procedural consequences … and therefore gives the appellant no independent right of appeal.”
Provision: Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
What does not add up: The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed a breach of the same provision (decision of 23.01.2023 – 2 BvR 1343/22); that case concerned a delay, this one a failure to submit the matter.
Action for scrutiny: Scrutiny of the nature and extent of administrative supervision in this matter.
§ 10 Abs. 1 S. 2 PetG Bln
A-04 · The Federal Court of Justice did not rule individually on 28 recorded grounds of challenge (explanation, not a request for scrutiny)
Evidence: Decision of 07.05.2025: point 2 — the supplements “were before the division and were the subject of its deliberations”; point 3 rejects “numerous further submissions” without specifying a case reference.
Action for scrutiny: None — the Federal Court of Justice is outside this Committee’s remit. This point serves solely to explain the course of events.
A-05 · No defence lawyer could be reached from September 2024; the request to discharge appointed counsel remained undecided
Evidence: Chronology, correspondence; copy of the grounds of appeal on points of law on 06.12.2024 — eight days after the deadline expired.
Provision: § 143a StPO, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Bst. c EMRK.
Action for scrutiny: Information on the status of the request of 17.12.2024 to discharge appointed counsel.
§ 10 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
A-06 · Access to the case files has not been granted since December 2024
Provision: § 147 StPO.
Action for scrutiny: Information on which applications were decided and when.
§ 10 Abs. 1, § 10 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
Group B — access to legal protection in prison
B-01 · Six documented refusals to take statements on the record; the staff relied on an instruction
Evidence: Declaration in lieu of oath, Annex 9_F2 — 15.01., 24.02., 12.03., 14.03., 18.03., 24.03.2025.
Provision: § 345 Abs. 2 StPO, § 118 Abs. 3 StVollzG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
Action for scrutiny: Production of the instruction or note on which the staff relied.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, b PetG Bln
B-02 · The application of 11.06.2025 was not decided until 04.11.2025
Evidence: Annex 67_F2.
Provision: § 108 StVollzG, Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG.
Action for scrutiny: Information on the processing time.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
B-03 · On the same day, it was stated orally that no written decision would be issued
Evidence: Annex 67_F2.
What does not add up: Without a written decision, there is no measure capable of being challenged. The supervisory authority, for its part, makes its action conditional on a final decision by the prison.
Action for scrutiny: Information on why no formal decision was issued.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
B-04 · The Kammergericht stated that the prison had “rightly” changed its practice
Evidence: Annex 142_F2, 5 Ws 17/26.
What does not add up: A prison does not change its practice if the previous practice was lawful. Nevertheless, the Rechtsbeschwerde was dismissed as inadmissible.
Action for scrutiny: Information on when the practice changed and what prompted the change.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
B-05 · Privileged correspondence: opened envelopes, no mail logging
Evidence: Incidents of 26.05.2025 and 08.10.2025; the prison’s statement of 07.11.2025.
Provision: § 30 StVollzG Bln, §§ 202, 206 StGB, Art. 10 GG.
Action for scrutiny: Production of outgoing and incoming mail records for 01/2025–08/2026.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG Bln
B-06 · Scrutiny of its own affairs: were this petition and earlier petitions forwarded sealed?
Provision: § 3 PetG Bln — prisoners’ petitions must be forwarded sealed and without inspection by the prison management.
Action for scrutiny: Establishing whether this was complied with.
§ 5 Abs. 1, § 3 PetG Bln
B-07 · Supervision without a substantive decision
Evidence: Letter of 05.05.2025 (Annex 56_F2): “Only once the prison management has dealt conclusively with your concern and made a decision can the Senate Department … review the prison management’s decision.” Three submissions (24.04., 05.05., 05.06.2025) were each forwarded.
What does not add up: The prison refused to make precisely the decision on which supervisory action depends.
Action for scrutiny: Information on how many substantive decisions the supervisory authority has made since April 2025.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, § 7 Abs. 3 PetG Bln
Group C — imprisonment, prognosis and liberty
C-01 · The documents underpinning the decisions are unsigned
Evidence: Diagnostic assessment of 12.03.2026 (Annex 137_F2) and sentence plan of 17.04.2026 (Annex 115_F2), both “On behalf of / E4”.
What does not add up: The decision of 31.07.2026 answers only the question about the name, not the signature.
Action for scrutiny: Information on who drew up the documents and bears responsibility for them.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, b PetG Bln
C-02 · The diagnostic assessment declares itself not open to challenge in court
Evidence, verbatim: “An application for a judicial decision against the diagnostic assessment is not possible.”
What does not add up: All the negative assessments in subsequent decisions originate in this document.
Action for scrutiny: Examination of the lawfulness of this information on legal remedies.
§ 9, § 10 Abs. 3 PetG Bln
C-03 · An expunged conviction is used contrary to the records’ own warning
Evidence: Personal data sheet of 29.05.2026 — “Previous convictions: 0” and “Observe deletion and the prohibition on use under §§ 51, 52 BZRG!”; page 12 of the diagnostic assessment infers a “fundamental disposition to act dissocially” from the conviction in 2000.
What does not add up: Both statements come from the same case file.
Action for scrutiny: Production of the complete set of documents and examination of the use of this information.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b, § 7 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
C-04 · Need for treatment identified, treatment not offered
Evidence, verbatim: “In principle, a need for therapeutic treatment is identified. However, an indication for treatment is … not established, as it would currently have little prospect of success.”
Action for scrutiny: Information on what measures to address the offence were actually offered.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
C-05 · Two official documents, opposing facts about social ties
Evidence: Sentence plan of 17.04.2026 — “many contacts”; decision of 24.06.2026 — “no social contacts or ties”.
Action for scrutiny: Production of both originals.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG Bln
C-06 · Actions seeking legal protection assessed as a prognostic risk
Evidence: Sentence plan, page 2 — the risk of misuse arises “from the current strong focus on the struggle against the German justice system”.
What does not add up: The same document states that activism is not in principle problematic provided it remains within the law.
Action for scrutiny: Examination of whether this is compatible with the principle that exercising the right of petition must not cause a disadvantage.
§ 9, § 10 Abs. 3 PetG Bln
C-07 · Denial of the offence is one basis for the refusal of release
Evidence: Decision of 24.06.2026; the Prosecutor General’s Office’s submission of 26.05.2026, stating that an admission of guilt is not an indispensable prerequisite.
Action for scrutiny: Review of expediency after the proceedings have concluded.
§ 10 Abs. 3 PetG Bln
C-08 · The facts were confirmed as fully established without examining the documents
Evidence: Decision of 31.07.2026 (Annex 157_F2) — “not scanned and inspected and therefore not used as a basis for the decision”.
Action for scrutiny: Production of the file with receipt and scanning notes.
§ 10 Abs. 1 PetG Bln
Group D — direction of the investigation
D-01 · Two statements by a foreign state, no investigation in that direction
Evidence: PC.DEL/1483/21 (23.09.2021), PC.DEL/526/22 (08.04.2022); expert report of 02.07.2026.
What does not add up: The second statement is dated sixteen days before the alleged offence. The reasoning on motive relies on the failure to obtain “attention not previously received”.
Action for scrutiny: Information on whether the prosecuting authority knew of the statements and whether they are in the files.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, § 10 Abs. 1 PetG Bln
D-02 · The vehicle fire of 01./02.01.2022 — outcome of proceedings unknown
Action for scrutiny: Information on the outcome of the proceedings.
§ 10 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
D-03 · Criminal complaint against a criminal police officer (Kriminalkommissar) — outcome unknown
Action for scrutiny: Information on the outcome and service of the complaint of 23.01.2024.
§ 10 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
D-04 · The Prosecutor General’s Office’s jurisdiction in the proceedings
Evidence: Indictment 176 Js 4/22.
Expressly stated: No allegation against any person is derived from this.
Action for scrutiny: Information on why the indictment was brought by the Prosecutor General’s Office.
§ 10 Abs. 4 PetG Bln
Group E — pressure and threats to safety in prison
E-01 · A threat to safety reported since 22.07.2024, on file in a declaration in lieu of oath since 27.10.2025
Action for scrutiny: Production of the files.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG Bln
E-02 · On 10.06.2026, physical proximity to the same person was arranged
What does not add up: The threat to safety had been on file for more than seven months.
Action for scrutiny: Production of the transfer order together with the security assessment.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG Bln
E-03 · Reported death threat, antisemitic insults and spitting (05.08.2026)
Action for scrutiny: Preservation of the video recording; information on the status of proceedings.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, b PetG Bln
E-04 · Both prisoners removed from the workplace; the person reporting the threat lost his work assignment
Action for scrutiny: Information on the basis for the measure and the loss of earnings.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
E-05 · The prison confirms a serious threat to safety in writing
What does not add up: The same situation already existed in June 2026 when the proximity was arranged.
Action for scrutiny: An unannounced visit and a conversation without third parties.
§ 5 Abs. 2 PetG Bln
E-06 · Thirteen months of extensive isolation from December 2022
Action for scrutiny: Production of the prison file for this period.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG Bln
Group F — termination of residence
F-01 · Hearing procedure concerning intended expulsion — three days after delivery of the sentence plan
Evidence: Letter R 6413–999581/33849, 27.04.2026.
Expressly stated: There is no final expulsion order and no formal warning of deportation.
Action for scrutiny: Information on the status of proceedings.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a PetG Bln
F-02 · Individual risk in the destination state
Evidence: Designation of Unkremlin e. V. as an “undesirable organisation” (01.09.2023); two OSCE statements; expert report of 02.07.2026.
Provision: § 60 AufenthG, Art. 3 EMRK, Art. 8 EMRK.
Action for scrutiny: Examination of whether these documents have been taken into account.
§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, b PetG Bln
F-03 · Residence since 1992, family tie within Germany
Evidence: Point 12 of the sentence plan mentions “existing family ties, in particular to his son”.
Provision: Art. 8 EMRK, Art. 6 GG.
see F-01
Block 3

List of requests

No.RequestLegal basis
P1Production of the files and documents held by JVA Heidering, JVA Moabit, the Senate Department for Justice and the State Office for Immigration concerning the matters listed under A–F§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. b PetG
P2Production of the note of the discussion on 11.08.2025 between JVA Heidering and the Senate Department, and of the instruction underlying the six refusals in spring 2025§ 5 Abs. 1 Bst. a, b PetG
P3An unannounced visit to JVA Heidering and a conversation without third parties present§ 5 Abs. 2 PetG
P4Hearing the responsible staff members where written information is insufficient§ 6 PetG
P5Establishing whether § 3 PetG was complied with (forwarding sealed)§ 5 Abs. 1, § 3 PetG
P6Requesting information from the courts; scrutiny of administrative supervision§ 10 Abs. 1 PetG
P7Referral to the Senate with a recommendation, a report within three weeks§ 7 Abs. 1, 3 PetG
P8Review of the expediency of measures on which final decisions have already been made§ 9, § 10 Abs. 3 PetG
P9Referral to the body responsible for criminal or disciplinary proceedings§ 7 Abs. 4 PetG
P10If the available means are insufficient: a motion for a committee of inquiry§ 5 Abs. 5 PetG
P11Publication with the possibility of co-signing, provided a public interest is found to exist§ 6a PetG
Block 4

If this holds, what follows

I ask the Committee to read each of the following sentences as a general rule — as it would apply to every Berlin resident if the relevant decision stands.

The substance of a final judgment can be supplemented after the appeal on points of law has concluded, and no one can have that addition reviewed.
The court of origin can suspend the statutory sequence of court instances by not forwarding a document; there is no remedy against this.
The better a prisoner defends himself, the less access to court he is entitled to.
An authority can close off legal remedies by not making a written decision.
Substantive supervision begins only when the supervised body has decided — and that body determines whether it decides.
A court can confirm that the facts have been fully established without examining the documents offered.
An unsigned document can determine years of imprisonment without anyone signing as the person responsible.
A conviction expunged from the Federal Central Register remains usable once an official document mentions it.
The right not to incriminate oneself ends with the judgment and is then converted into time in prison.
Contacting the press and the supervisory authority can be answered by the withdrawal of family contact.

None of these sentences originates with me. Each is the generalised version of a decision made in the documents listed under Block 2. In detail: If this holds, what follows? →

Block 5

Annexes and access

All the documents mentioned are linked in their original form on this website (Chronology archive, Document profiles). I will also provide the Committee with:

  • an index of all annexes mentioned in this petition, with date, issuer and source location,
  • the print version of this petition with identical numbering,
  • a contact address for follow-up questions: bagrash.presse@gmail.com.

I am willing to be heard by the Committee or an appointed member and expressly request this.

How this website is made and how to reach me →