This page concerns a single reply dated 14.09.2026, signed by name (Annex 220_F2), in which Ms Hehmann — signing “On behalf of” the Senate Department — dealt with six of my submissions in a combined response. She was clearly acting in the Department’s name, not exercising decision-making authority of her own; nevertheless, this page assesses what was written under her name using the structure Fact – Evidence – Provision – Significance and presents my assessment. It does not replace a judicial finding.
1 The reply on the video-call ban refers to Google
In a fax of 02.09.2026, I had asked the Senate Department to establish through which information channel JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison) learned of the video concerned five days before my video calls were blocked (Badenberg dossier, point 6). The reply of 14.09.2026:
“Since you make your activities, as well as the video you named, publicly accessible on the internet, I see no reason to ask Heidering Prison to inform me of the information channel. Anyone who googles you can obtain this knowledge in a very short time.” — Annex 220_F2
Art. 17 GG (right of petition) · § 151 StVollzG (supervision) · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG
Significance: The question was not whether information about me can be found publicly, but through which specific channel the prison obtained it — and whether that channel influenced its official actions. The letter does not answer this question; instead, it denies the need to ask it at all.
Annex 220_F2Alternative hypothesis Brief as it is, the reply is not a mere refusal: it explains why, in the case officer’s view, no inquiry to the prison is necessary — a substantive position, albeit insufficient in my view.
What is missing An examination of the difference between “this information is publicly accessible” and “the prison actually used it through this channel to impose a restriction on a fundamental right”.
2 An order three days old goes unmentioned in the same paragraph of the reply
On 11.09.2026, Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I), file reference 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz, had set aside as unlawful the decision of JVA Heidering dated 22.07.2026 blocking my video calls — the very matter whose background I had asked to be clarified (Annex 218_F2). Three days later, on 14.09.2026, Ms Hehmann’s letter answers precisely this question — without mentioning the order, its content or its existence anywhere.
§ 151 StVollzG · Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG (the administration’s obligation to act within the rule of law)
Significance: JVA Heidering’s own account to the Petitions Committee, relied on in point 1 of the letter to close the registered-letter matter, is dated 09.09.2026 — two days before the order. Insofar as it relies on the prison’s own statements, the entire combined response therefore reflects a state of affairs predating the judicial finding of unlawfulness; when the letter was written three days after that finding, it was not reflected in the letter.
Alternative hypothesis According to the table in the letter itself, this point was referred to the specialist officer on 14.09.2026 — that same day. Without a documented reporting channel between the Regional Court and the supervisory authority, it cannot be ruled out that the order simply was not yet in the Senate Department’s file at that time. I do not allege deliberate concealment.
What is missing Any evidence that the Senate Department, as supervisory authority, is routinely informed at all of judicial decisions against the prison it supervises — and, if so, whether that happened in this case before the matter was dealt with.
3 The complaint against OStA Wachs: open since 2024, now “forwarded” again
Regarding the second request of 02.09.2026 — for information under § 147 GVG on the status of the complaint I filed in 2024 against senior public prosecutor Klaus-Michael Wachs — the letter states:
“Regarding the status of your complaint against senior public prosecutor Klaus-Michael Wachs, I have forwarded your concern to the competent specialist unit and am awaiting its response.” — Annex 220_F2
§ 147 GVG (official supervision of prosecutors) · Art. 17 GG
Significance: A criminal complaint filed in 2024, whose processing status I have been trying to ascertain for over a year, is answered by another referral — without a date or a time frame for the requested response. This fits the Department’s pattern already documented on this page; see
Badenberg dossier, point 1: “Forwarding instead of examining — a closed circle”.
Alternative hypothesis The case officer replying is not herself responsible for handling a criminal complaint against a senior public prosecutor; referring it to the specialist unit and awaiting its response is the prescribed official channel, not a delaying tactic by the person signing here.
What is missing A date by which a response can be expected, and an explanation of why a matter open since 2024 has still received no substantive answer two years later.
Sources: Annex 220_F2 (reply, 14.09.2026) · Annex 199_F2 (proof of transmission of the two requests, 02.09.2026) · Annex 218_F2 (order of LG Berlin I, 11.09.2026) · see also
Dr. Felor Badenberg dossier. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.