Home › You are now thinking
Six objections

Six objections I know

I have heard them for years from journalists, members of parliament and people who know me personally. Every one is reasonable. I therefore take them as a checklist rather than a reproach, and answer each with one document.

1“Judges in Germany do not falsify judgments.”

That is the right starting point, and I make no claim about the German justice system as a whole. I am discussing one event: the judgment of 22.07.2024 lacked the list of applied provisions required by § 260 Abs. 5 StPO. It was inserted on 30.07.2025, 373 days after pronouncement, after the judgment had become final and 84 days after the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). As the “correction of a clerical error”. Without information on appeal rights.

What you will now look up, and I am telling you in advance: Under the prevailing view, defects in this list alone do not provide grounds for an appeal on points of law (Revision). That is correct, and the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) put precisely this point to me. My allegation concerns the method and timing, not the absence of the list. A correction after pronouncement is possible only for an obvious clerical or pronouncement error, without a new reasoning process. Is determining the complete chain of provisions for the first time 373 days later a clerical error?
The missing list →

2“You do not get five years and four months for nothing.”

Agreed. So look at two figures in the judgment itself rather than the sentence length. The device was allegedly placed on the night of 23 to 24 April 2022 and was found on 6 May 2022, thirteen days later, unnoticed. The judgment records that it did not react. Between its discovery and my arrest there were 222 days.

The case in five minutes →

3“Where were the lawyers?”

That is the question I ask most often myself. From September 2024, my defence counsel was no longer reachable. I received a copy of the grounds of appeal on 06.12.2024, eight days after the deadline. My application to discharge counsel of 17.12.2024 remained undecided. Afterwards, I could submit supplements only through the Urkundsbeamten der Geschäftsstelle, the court registry officer authorised to formally record submissions. This is precisely what has been disputed since January 2025, and it is the subject of the document with which this website begins.

Access to court →Lawyer sought →

4“Why would a judge falsify anything?”

I cannot prove a motive and do not allege one. I place two things side by side and leave the rest to you. In my final statement, I announced that after my release I would take the case and the role of those involved to the Bundestag (German federal parliament). What happened afterwards is documented on this website day by day. I say no more about it. It is a chronology, not an assertion.

Responsible persons: names, offices, decisions →

5“The Bundesgerichtshof would have noticed.”

In point 2 of its order of 07.05.2025, the Bundesgerichtshof writes that my supplements to the grounds of appeal “were before the Division and were the subject of deliberation”. In point 3, it dismisses “the numerous further submissions” without identifying a single case reference. A list of 28 procedural complaints shows that the column “Addressed in the order?” is empty throughout. At that time, the judgment still did not contain the list of applied provisions.

The list of procedural complaints →

6“If this were true, the press would have written about it.”

Possibly. I know this objection and consider it the most honest of all. In the press section, you will find five documents that can each be checked in ten minutes, with case references, dates and source locations, freely usable photographs, two quotable sentences and direct contact details. If your examination shows that I am wrong, write that. This website contains several corrections to my own disadvantage; I published them myself because a record is worth only as much as its accuracy.

Press section →My own corrections →