I expressly make no allegation against Ms Mahlow. The entries concerning her appear here because they show at which level decisions were made that were never communicated to me in writing.
1 Conveying decisions without a written notice
On 17.07.2026, she was present when the three-month ban on my video calls was communicated orally. On 06.08.2026, in response to my question about the marking on my cell door and my exclusion from work, she said she knew no further details; the decision was being made “higher up”.
§§ 108, 109 StVollzG · § 35a StPO by analogy
Significance: An orally conveyed decision whose author is not identified cannot be challenged by the person concerned. The resulting written decision was set aside by a court as unlawful on 11.09.2026.
Chronology No. 167,
Dossier on this matterAlternative hypothesis A social worker does not make the decision and is not authorised to give reasons for it; someone who has no information cannot provide it, and referral to the competent office is the proper course.
What is missing The written decision itself. If a measure is announced orally and the staff member present cannot give further details, the person concerned has nothing on which to base a legal challenge.
2 Reporting the threat on 05.08.2026
On 05.08.2026 at around 14:45, I reported to her the death threat and antisemitic insults from another prisoner. The prison thus knew of the danger on that day.
§ 2 StVollzG (duty of care) · Art. 2 Abs. 2 GG
Significance: The time of the report matters in determining from when the prison had knowledge.
Chronology F5-019Alternative hypothesis The report was received and forwarded; what followed was no longer in her hands.
What is missing Documentation of what happened to the report next. The documents available to me do not show when or to whom it was passed on within the prison.
3 The documents for the appeal on points of law subject to a filing deadline, 02.–07.09.2026
On 02.09.2026 at around 14:45, a social worker who introduced herself as Ms Mahlow’s substitute took the prepared text of my Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) and the contested order. She said she would fax both to Amtsgericht Zossen (Zossen Local Court) and return them to me the next day. They were not returned to me on 03.09. or 04.09.2026; the office was locked at the times when I could visit it after work.
On 07.09.2026 at around 14:30, I met Ms Mahlow — on her first working day after her holiday. Asked where the documents were and about the appointment with the court registry officer, she said she did not know. At around 17:00 to 17:30, I visited her again and insisted that they be handed over. About an hour later, the documents were given to me. They have been back in my possession since 07.09.2026; the point is resolved and is no longer maintained.
§ 118 Abs. 1 and 3 StVollzG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG · § 2 StVollzG
Alternative hypothesis Ms Mahlow was on holiday and had no involvement in the matter before 07.09.2026; her substitute may have filed the documents and simply omitted to pass on the matter during handover. The fact that the documents were back with me on the very day she returned suggests that she attended to it.
What is missing Information on whether, when and with what result the documents were sent to Amtsgericht Zossen, together with the transmission report. And the appointment with the court registry officer, which has still not been communicated.
Sources: Annexes 146_F2, 10_F5, 200_F2, 208_F2 · Case 2 chronology, Nos. 167 and 197, Case 5, No. 19. This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes between documented episodes and information provided by the person concerned.