Open Statements
A public statement for each legal remedy, on the same day. Not out of a desire for publicity, but because whether documents arrive has repeatedly been disputed in these proceedings. What has been published cannot disappear.
Two documents, one day, two routes
Since the beginning of 2026, I have followed the same procedure for each legal remedy. I file the submission with the court — and on the same day publish a public statement about it. Both documents go out together.
The reason is not a desire for publicity. It lies in the state of the file: in these proceedings, whether documents arrived at all has repeatedly been disputed. Acknowledgements of receipt were missing; mail reached me without postage or a postmark; announced annexes were absent; mail from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) and the defence arrived opened. The prison stated that incoming and delivered mail is not logged.
There is a second reason. A legal remedy is addressed to a court and written in the language of the proceedings. An Open Statement addresses readers and must be understandable without knowledge of the file. Together, they show whether the arguments made in court differ from those made publicly. That is precisely what should be verifiable.
Each legal remedy with its corresponding statement
Chronologically, newest first. Each row links to both: the filed submission and the public statement about it.
I reject freedom in exchange for a confession
Legal remedy: Response to the observations of the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) in complaint proceedings 2 Ws 111/26
The statement I am asked about most often: a confession and therapy could open the way to relaxed prison conditions and early release. I reject that.
Three-month video-call ban after criticism of the justice system
Legal remedy: Final observations in proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz, also an application under § 114 para. 2 StVollzG
The simple question that remains unanswered to this day: what specific rule, notified to me beforehand, am I alleged to have breached on 02.06.2026?
Constitutional complaint lodged
Legal remedy: Constitutional complaint to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)
Publication on the day of filing — and, as it would turn out, the trigger for the later ban on my video calls.
Open Statement on the refusal of early release
Legal remedy: Immediate complaint (sofortige Beschwerde) against the order of 24.06.2026, lodged at 23:49
Complaint and public statement on the same day — the complaint on the very day the order was delivered.
After the hearing of 24.06.2026
Legal remedy: Observations in proceedings 589 StVK 86/26 and a service-supervision complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) to the President of the Regional Court (Landgericht)
Two documents to two different bodies, together with public documentation — all on the same day.
Against being moved closer to the person reported as a threat
Legal remedy: Final observations with public documentation
The danger had been recorded in the file since October 2025. On 05.08.2026, a death threat and antisemitic insults occurred at the workplace.
Before the two-thirds date
Legal remedy: Letter to Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court), also an application to admit the press
The application to admit press representatives to the hearing remained undecided; the press was not admitted.
On the complaint on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) 5 Ws 17/26
Legal remedy: Communication from the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court)
The issue was whether I should be granted an escorted trip to the court registry officer.
What an Open Statement is — and what it is not
It is not a press release in the usual sense. It does not demand that third parties take a position and asks no one for solidarity. It sets out what was filed with which court that day, what supports it and what should follow from it.
It does not replace a legal remedy. No court is obliged to take note of a published statement. Recourse to the courts proceeds solely through the documents filed with them.
It identifies office-holders by function and, where they signed, by name. It makes no criminal allegations against them. Where an assessment is made, it is identified as my assessment; the presumption of innocence applies without restriction.
And it has had consequences. The decision of 22.07.2026 banning my video calls for three months expressly relies on such a publication and calls my interest in it ‘self-presentation in public’. That is why this series is collected here: it has itself become a subject of proceedings. Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) set aside that decision as unlawful on 11.09.2026 — full dossier.