Earlier proceedings · Strafanzeige Groß/Wachs

The complaint of 2 September 2026 is not the first attempt. Since November 2024, every one of my complaints against Groß, Wachs and the Berlin justice system has ended up back with the Berlin justice system.

Senate justice administration: Anlage 56_F2

Eleven pages of letters from 2025. 3 April 2025: complaints against Moabit prison go first to Moabit prison. 15 April 2025: the disciplinary complaint against Judge Groß goes to the President of Berlin Regional Court I — on the ground that he exercises direct supervision. 5 May 2025: the prison is first to decide itself. 15 May 2025: submissions are passed to the Prosecutor General’s Office. Further referrals on 16 May, 27 May and 16 June 2025.

Every letter names a jurisdiction. None answers the question I asked: who examines a matter when the competent body is itself involved?

Access to the court registry officer: Anlage 84_F2

Statement by Heidering prison of September 2025: it considers my application to be taken to the court registry officer unfounded, describes a single escorted visit — and a line agreed with the Senate justice administration. Agreed with the supervisory authority to which I complain about the prison.

Forwarding of appeals: Anlagen 82 and 85_F2

Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court), order of 31 October 2025, 3 Ws 48/25 + 49/25: appeals rejected. The duty under § 306(2) StPO to submit an appeal to the appellate court within three days at the latest is described as a non-mandatory provision without a separate right of appeal. More than two months lie between my appeal of 26/27 August 2025 and this order. My constitutional complaint of 24 November 2025 (Anlage 85_F2) is directed against it.

What applies if this applies? A time limit that can be breached without consequence is no time limit.

Open prison conditions: Anlagen 115 and 137_F2

Die Missbrauchsgefahr ergibt sich aus der derzeitigen starken Fokussierung auf den Kampf gegen die deutsche Justiz, die auch zwei Jahre nach Verurteilung das Erleben und Handeln des Herrn B. gänzlich bestimmt.

Translation: “The risk of abuse arises from the current strong focus on the fight against the German justice system, which even two years after the conviction entirely determines Mr B.’s experience and actions.” Sentence and integration plan of 17 April 2026, section 2.1 (Anlage 115_F2). In its section on the legal prognosis, the same plan states — word for word as in the diagnostic procedure (Anlage 137_F2, extracts):

Ein Engagement im Sinne von Aktivismus oder die Wahrnehmung der eigenen Rechte ist grundsätzlich nicht als problematisch zu bewerten, sofern es im legalen Rahmen erfolgt.

Translation: “Engagement in the sense of activism or the exercise of one’s own rights is in principle not to be regarded as problematic, provided it takes place within the legal framework.”

What is the “fight against the German justice system”, if not applications, complaints, criminal complaints and publications — that is, precisely the “exercise of one’s own rights” that the same text declares unproblematic? The complaint of 2 September 2026 is an exercise of my rights. It is being examined by the very justice system whose members it is directed against.

Original / source document (DE)

Anlage 115_F2, page 2: scan of the full paragraph in context.