Day   in detention This documentation is produced from Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering (Heidering Prison). I cannot send material by post from here — every transmission is by fax through third parties. What the justice system writes about me →
⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin

Political prisoner, ECtHR complaint filed, threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.

Details →
Dossier · Access to the courts · 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz

The video call ban — from the prison decision to its setting aside by the court

On 22.07.2026, JVA Heidering (Heidering Prison) blocked my access to video calls for three months. On 11.09.2026, the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) set aside this decision as unlawful: the statutory requirements for a ban were not met. This dossier brings together the entire document chain — from the video that triggered the matter to service of the order.

Case reference
595 StVK 126/26 Vollz
Decision
Prison decision of 22.07. set aside
Court
LG Berlin I, single judge Netsch-Hohloch
Costs
9/10 prison · 1/10 applicant
What this concerns

An email to the press office becomes the basis for a sanction

On 02.06.2026, I recorded a roughly 15-minute YouTube video from my cell, entitled “Judge Groß falsified the judgment”. On 12.07.2026, I sent an email — not to the prison, but to the press office of the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection) — referring to my pending constitutional complaint and linking to this video.

On 17.07.2026, I was told orally that video calls would be blocked for three months. The written decision followed on 22.07.2026, signed “On behalf, Lohmeier”. The prison's reasoning was that I had “misused” video calls to disseminate personal views about the Berlin justice system, thereby jeopardising my rehabilitation.

I submitted an application for a judicial decision against this on 20.07.2026 and supplemented it on 14.08.2026. The Landgericht Berlin I decided on 11.09.2026.

Chronology

From the video to service of the order

DateMatterEvidence
June 2025Access to the in-cell media system at JVA Heidering, still in the pilot/test phase; video calls with relatives become possible.Order of 11.09.2026, statement of facts
02.06.2026I record a roughly 15-minute YouTube video from my cell. Title: “Judge Groß falsified the judgment”.Account of the person concerned / order, page 2
12.07.2026Email to the press office of the Senate Department for Justice and Consumer Protection, referring to the pending constitutional complaint and linking to the video.Annex 152_F2
17.07.2026Oral opportunity to make representations (Anhörung); announcement of the three-month ban. In the court's understanding, the ban is enforced from this day.Order of 11.09.2026, statement of facts
20.07.2026My application for a judicial decision: restoration, a finding that the ban was unlawful, provision of a written reasoned decision with information on legal remedies.Order of 11.09.2026, page 3
22.07.2026Written decision of JVA Heidering (“On behalf, Lohmeier”): ban until 16.10.2026 for “misuse”. Handed over on 23.07.2026.152_F2
14.08.2026Supplement to my application: setting aside the decision of 22.07. and immediate restoration. Requests concerning provision of the decision/information on legal remedies declared moot; a costs decision according to equitable discretion requested.Order of 11.09.2026, pages 3–4
25.08.2026Prison's statement, signed “Lohmeier, acting head of prison unit 1”: the ban was said to be the least restrictive measure; I had not been willing to refrain from future publications attracting public attention.205_F2 · 206_F2
11.09.2026Order of the Landgericht Berlin I, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz, single judge Netsch-Hohloch: the decision of 22.07.2026 is set aside. The remainder of the application is rejected. Costs: 9/10 prison, 1/10 applicant. Value in dispute: 500 EUR.Annex 218_F2
15.09.2026Certified copy of the order prepared (court registry official Thiele). On the same day, I find that video calls have technically been re-enabled for me — without an accompanying letter.218_F2
17.09.2026The order and covering letter reach me at JVA Heidering.218_F2
The order of 11.09.2026

What the court finds

The Landgericht Berlin I finds that the requirements for banning video calls under § 33 Abs. 1 S. 2 in conjunction with § 30 StVollzG Bln were not met. A threat to the safety or order of the prison from the video (§ 30 Nr. 1 StVollzG Bln) was not apparent; the prison had not put forward specific factual indications of one. A prohibition under § 30 Nr. 2 StVollzG Bln could not even be considered because it was not known whether I had contacted non-relatives in the video at all.

“Thus, in view of the inadequate fact-finding by the respondent, it is not even known whether the applicant made statements of criminal-law relevance in the video …” — order of 11.09.2026, page 5
“The general assertion that no measures less restrictive than the temporary ban existed does not, in any event, rule out a failure to exercise discretion here.” — order of 11.09.2026, page 6
§ 33 Abs. 1 S. 2 in conjunction with § 30 StVollzG Bln · Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG · Principle of proportionality
Significance: the court sets aside the prison decision not for a defect of form, but because the prison did not set out the substantive requirements for a ban and because its own fact-finding was inadequate in the court's assessment. A judicial decision thus independently confirms for the first time what was already implicit in the prison's statement of 25.08.2026: a provision prohibiting the disputed use was never identified.
Alternative hypothesisThe prison could have assumed in good faith that publishing a critical video about pending proceedings jeopardised rehabilitation, relying on its own assessment of the pilot arrangements without examining the strict requirements of § 30 StVollzG Bln in detail — an error of discretion, not arbitrariness.
What is missingThe prison's own examination of whether a less restrictive measure, such as a warning or a limitation on call participants, would have sufficed; this is precisely what the court considers unexamined.
Assessment

A partial success — not complete vindication

I record what the order actually decides and what it does not. The decision of 22.07.2026 is set aside — this is the core of my application and the only point with a value in dispute (450 of 500 EUR). The remainder of my application is rejected: The court considers an express finding that the ban was unlawful from 17.07.2026 inadmissible because it is subsidiary to the application to set the decision aside; the requests for a written decision had already become moot following its intervening handover and, in the court's view, were inadmissible from the outset because I should have waited before applying. The costs decision reflects this mixed outcome: the prison bears 9/10 and I bear 1/10.

What I do not assert. I do not claim that the court certified unlawfulness “from the outset”, nor that the costs decision fully confirms my position. The order is what it is: the prison decision was unlawful because its statutory requirements were not met — no more and no less.

The order's information on legal remedies refers to a Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on points of law) within one month, admissible only for developing the law or ensuring consistent case law, and only through a lawyer or by recording it at the Rechtsantragsstelle (court applications office) — the same structural hurdle as in the case of the Rechtsbeschwerde 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz. I am still examining whether a Rechtsbeschwerde is appropriate here.

A detail of the order

A video reportedly unavailable to the court — with title and duration

On page 2 of the order, the court describes the video as “about 15 minutes long” and gives its title verbatim. The same paragraph states that the video was no longer accessible to the court on YouTube and that JVA Heidering had said nothing in its statements about its content or technical production.

“The video is about 15 minutes long and is entitled ‘Judge Groß falsified the judgment’. Further details about the manner of recording, publication and statement content are not known here. … The video was no longer accessible to the court on Youtube. JVA Heidering said nothing about the content and technical production of the video in its brief statements.” — order of 11.09.2026, page 2
For assessment, not accusation
Significance: the order independently establishes, from a court's official case file rather than my own account, that a video with exactly this title existed, was forwarded by email to a Senate body on 12.07.2026 and later became the subject of judicial proceedings. The order itself does not state how the title and duration entered it when the link was no longer accessible at the time of the decision.
Alternative hypothesisThe most obvious explanation is not that someone at the court accessed a dead link today. The title and duration probably came from the email of 12.07.2026 itself, for example from a link preview automatically generated when it was sent, or the video was still accessible when the Senate Department or prison first viewed it in July, before it later disappeared from the platform. Both explain the finding without contradiction.
What is missingAn indication in the order of where the information came from. This is an open question, not a finding by me about the court's conduct. It is of interest because the same limited, not further substantiated source basis supports the prison's entire assessment — including the sentence following in the same passage, expressly qualified with “apparently”, inferring from my own letters that I had “challenged my conviction” in the video.
Connection

Unexplained re-enabling on 15.09.2026

On 15.09.2026, I found that video calls had technically been re-enabled for me, without any accompanying letter. At that point I did not yet know about the Regional Court's order; my own copy reached me only on 17.09.2026.

What this explains — and what it does not. The close timing suggests that re-enabling was the prison's response to the order, which it presumably received before I did. I cannot prove this: I do not know exactly when JVA Heidering received its own copy. Only the sequence is confirmed: technical re-enabling on 15.09., my own certified copy on 17.09. — and no written notification from the prison itself about this either, only the copy sent by the Regional Court.

If this connection is confirmed, it would be another instance of the same recurring pattern: decisions and documents reach the prison before me without the prison notifying me on its own responsibility — the same delay structure already documented twice for postal items (Annex 211_F2, Chronology no. 202).

Further developments 01.10.2026

Administrative and substantive supervisory complaints after the court set the decision aside

The setting aside by the court answers the question of whether the prison decision was lawful. How it came about and what administrative or substantive supervisory consequences the competent bodies draw remain unresolved. I have therefore prepared two separate complaints: a Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde for personal review under public-service law, and a Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde concerning administrative practice.

Annex 222_F2 — Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde (administrative supervisory complaint) →
Annex 223_F2 — Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde (substantive supervisory complaint) →

DistinctionThe complaints do not assert that the court order established intent, political retaliation or official misconduct. They request precisely the separate supervisory examination provided for that purpose.
Documents

The complete chain

This page as of 01.10.2026. It presents my own account and legal assessment and distinguishes facts established by the court from my own information.