Reopening the case: a defence team outside Berlin is ready. Sought: a non-profit organisation to hold the donations — the money goes to the defence, not to me.
Details →Deception as modus operandi
of the justice system
Eight documented instances of deception. The sworn declarations are linked below. Why does the BGH (Federal Court of Justice) not examine my appeal on points of law (Revision), contrary to the Constitution? Why do all bodies settle for meaningless evasions?
The systematic deceptions
Immediately after pronouncement of the judgment, VRiLG Groß and senior public prosecutor Klaus Michael Wachs (OStA) imposed complete isolation. The search for a new lawyer was actively obstructed, communication even with the Jewish community was prevented, and access to the file was refused.
When I wished to submit supplements to the appeal on points of law (Revision) on the record, they were not forwarded to the appellate court. Eventually, the registry officer was even forbidden to accept them from me.
On 14.03.2025, court registry officers UKB Tiergarten refused again. On 18.03.2025: refusal of the supplement to the appeal on points of law (Revision), the criminal complaint against VRiLG Groß and the complaint of a violation of the right to be heard (Anhörungsrüge).
During the criminal proceedings, I lodged a criminal complaint against criminal police inspector Kriminalkommissar Weiß, who knowingly gave false testimony in court. There was no response.
The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office) treats the fact of my conviction as evidence that no offence was constituted — a conviction largely based on the false testimony of that same criminal police inspector. The reply came immediately after the death of lawyer RA Ingo Risch — the witness to the act whom I had named in the complaint.
Senior prosecutor OStA Klaus Michael Wachs prohibited the police from investigating independently from the outset. Documented interventions:
On 30.07.2025, the judgment of 22.07.2024 was subsequently ‘corrected’: the list of provisions was inserted for the first time — supposedly because of an ‘obvious clerical error’. In reality: a substantive amendment of the operative part after finality.
The BGH (Federal Court of Justice) thus dismissed the appeal on points of law (Revision) on the basis of a formally defective and incomplete judgment. The list of provisions was inserted 373 days after the judgment and 84 days after it became final.
Senior prosecutor OStA Wachs repeatedly stated that a provocation by Russian intelligence services was implausible because no one had anonymously informed the police of the perpetrator’s name.
= ‘It is him. Presumably Dmitry Bagrash … we lodged a complaint with the police.’ Sputnik (ru), 02.02.2023 — publicly accessible. Never seriously investigated by the prosecution service.
In September 2025, I learned that senior prosecutor OStA Wachs had misled the court contrary to the truth: there had indeed been an identification — by a senior figure in Russian state media.
On 26./27.08.2025, I lodged a complaint against the correction order. Instead of placing it before the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) — as § 306 para. 2 StPO mandatorily requires — my matter was forwarded to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Prosecutor General’s Office). There was no file reference there.
Consequence: by failing to submit the matter, the originating court can effectively disable the statutory route through the courts — without an effective counter-remedy in the ordinary courts. This violates Art. 2 para. 2 sentence 2, Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 and Art. 19 para. 4 GG.
The Regional Court’s (Landgericht) reply concerning Annex 29_F3 has information on legal remedies attached. On examination of the supplied document, its text consists of two blocks that do not belong together.
Block 1 begins correctly: information on the complaint under § 304 StPO — the appropriate legal remedy against an order. The sentence breaks off.
Block 2 starts in the middle of the text and comes from an entirely different form: instructions on electronic filing, followed by information on Berufung (appeal), Revision (appeal on points of law), Nebenklage (participation as a private accessory prosecutor) and Anschlusserklärung (declaration of joinder). These are legal remedies against a judgment — they are not available against an order.
The finding is evidenced on the sheet itself — the break in the sentence, the change of form, the unavailable legal remedies, the missing deadline. How this sheet came into being, I cannot prove. I consider it possible that two templates were copied on top of each other; this is my assessment, not a finding. I request a technical examination of the original.
The relevant legal provisions are § 35a StPO (duty to provide information on legal remedies), § 44 sentence 2 StPO (where information is absent or incorrect, missing the deadline is considered not attributable to fault), and Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG. Incorrect information is therefore not a peripheral formal defect, but concerns access to the next instance.
Related material: Chronology F3-033 · Dossier on VRiLG Groß, section IV
When I challenge a decision, the response refers me to that very decision. This is not an isolated clumsiness — it is the consistent form of reasoning used to decide my submissions.
| Date | Body | Reasons | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01.07.2025 | Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) | No procedural violations — because the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) dismissed the appeal on points of law (Revision) | Annex 89_F2 |
| July 2025 | Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) | No offence constituted in the complaint against KK Weiß (criminal police inspector) — because the conviction stands | declaration in lieu of oath |
| 14.07.2026 | Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office) | Complaint unfounded — with reference to the reasons of the challenged order | Annex 149_F2 |
| 26.06.2026 | President of the Berlin Regional Court I | Service-supervision complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) unsuccessful — because the legal remedies were dismissed | Annex 147_F2 |
In the first case, the exact wording is secured. The reasons section of the letter of 01.07.2025 (file reference 176 Js 4/22) consists of two sentences:
None of the facts I presented is identified. And: at the time of this letter, the list of provisions applied under § 260 para. 5 StPO was still not present in the judgment — it was added only on 30.07.2025. The decision on the appeal on points of law cited here as evidence of the proper conduct of proceedings therefore concerned a judgment without a list of provisions.
In the second case, the circle closes completely. On 23.01.2024, I lodged a criminal complaint against Kriminalkommissar Weiß (criminal police inspector) for false testimony in court, on the record at the court registry. I received no acknowledgement of receipt; in response to my status enquiry of 06.01.2025, I was not even given a reference number. Only around a year and a half after the complaint — after the judgment and dismissal of the appeal on points of law (Revision) — was I informed that the investigation had been discontinued because no offence was constituted. The conviction serves as evidence of this. But the judgment relies substantially on the testimony of precisely this witness.
There is a further circumstance which I record without drawing a conclusion: in the complaint, I named lawyer Dr. Ingo Risch as a witness to the act. The reply was issued immediately after his death.
Related material: Chief Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Brocke (Ltd. OStA) · Group leader at the Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office Lazarenko (GL) · Dr. Mauntel · 5th Criminal Division of the BGH · Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs (OStA)
All declarations in lieu of oath
During the proceedings, Dmitry Bagrash made several formal declarations in lieu of oath from JVA Moabit and JVA Heidering. They form the basis of the constitutional complaint and the application to the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR).
Original documents
To parliament, supervisory bodies and the public
- Which specific version of the judgment was before the BGH (Federal Court of Justice) — did it contain the list of provisions or not?
- On whose instruction was the court registry officer forbidden on 15.01.2025 to accept the supplement to the appeal on points of law (Revision)?
- Why was Feoktistov’s statement of 02.02.2023 never incorporated into the investigation — although it was publicly accessible?
- Did senior prosecutor OStA Wachs knowingly mislead the court when he stated that there had been no identification of the perpetrator?
- What safeguards exist to ensure that submissions in custody matters reach the competent instance without delay (§ 306 para. 2 StPO: within three days)?
- What is the content of what was developed on 11.08.2025 between JVA Heidering and the Senatsverwaltung Justiz (Senate Administration for Justice) as a ‘common approach’?