Day   in custody This documentation is produced from Justizvollzugsanstalt Heidering (Heidering correctional facility). I cannot send material by post from here — every transmission is made by fax through third parties. All original documents →
Status of proceedings — 08.09.2026
Constitutional complaint of 10.07.2026 registered under 2 BvR 1314/26 (a file reference denotes an entry in the proceedings register, nothing more) · second constitutional complaint of 01.09.2026 still without a file reference · criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 not decided, the presumption of innocence applies · complaint on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) 595 StVK 68/26 Vollz declared in time on 09.09.2026 on the record before the court registry officer (the matter) · video-call ban of 22.07.2026 set aside by the court as unlawful on 11.09.2026, 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz (dossier on this matter) · criminal complaint against another prisoner being processed by StA Potsdam (Potsdam Public Prosecutor’s Office) under 496 Js 34084/26.
⚖ Urgent: criminal defence lawyer sought — outside Berlin

Political prisoner, application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR), threat of deportation. Unprecedented resistance from the Berlin prosecution service is to be expected. The lawyer must be based outside Berlin.

Details →
Dossier · verbatim

What the justice system writes about me

Eight sentences from documents of the Berlin justice system. Not my summary — their exact wording, with source references. Beside each sentence is what it establishes, how it could be explained innocuously and what evidence is missing. The original documents are linked; you need not believe a word I say.

On this page’s structure

Why the alternative hypothesis is included here too

Each of these events can also be explained innocuously: as overload, routine or a formal defect. That explanation is expressly included at every point — not out of politeness, but because documentation allowing only one reading is not documentation. What I ask you to examine is something else: whether eight innocuous individual explanations can point in the same direction.

I make no allegations against individual people here. On 02.09.2026, I lodged a criminal complaint under § 339 StGB; the allegation has not been decided and the presumption of innocence applies. This page evaluates none of that. It quotes.

The eight sentences

Exact wording, source reference, countercheck

1 · The number that never appears again
‘strong feelings of anger, pronounced experiences of hurt, a clearly articulated urge for retribution’
Diagnostic procedure of JVA Moabit of 17.04.2026 — Annex 137_F2. Unsigned, designated ‘on behalf / E4’.
What this establishesThe same document gives the only measurable value in the entire proceedings: LSI-R 20, in its own wording a risk of reoffending in the lower-average range. This number does not appear in any later decision. The quoted wording, however, passes verbatim through five further official documents.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationA prognostic instrument supplies a numerical value, the clinical assessment a description; both may stand side by side, and the description may rest on the personal impression gained in the diagnostic interview.
What is missingEvidence. No incident, statement or report is identified from which this attribution follows — and the divergent numerical value is not mentioned in subsequent decisions, even to refute it.
2 · Legal remedies as a source of danger
‘fight against the German justice system’
Sentence implementation and reintegration plan of 17.04.2026 — Annex 115_F2. Also unsigned.
What this establishesFrom this phrase, the plan infers a risk that I might misuse relaxed prison conditions. In the same document, it describes my imprisonment as free of incident reports; no disciplinary measure has been imposed in three and a half years of custody.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationA casual administrative expression for a high volume of applications and complaints that occupy staff — without intending to dispute their lawfulness.
What is missingThe distinction. No distinction is made between conduct endangering security or order and the exercise of statutory legal remedies. The prognosis requires precisely that distinction.
3 · The sentence at issue
‘Even in this respect, there is no positive prognosis of lawful conduct.’
Order of Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 24.06.2026, 589f StVK 86/26, page 2 — Annex 139_F2.
What this establishesThe sentence appears immediately after a list of three circumstances: my protests against denied access to court, publication of my own documents and my answer that political activity would continue. Two thirds of the sentence had been served on 05.07.2026.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationThe list could be intended to describe a general attitude rather than criticise the individual actions; the order also relies on further circumstances.
What is missingThe link to an offence. It is not explained what specific future act is said to follow from which specific circumstance. The BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office) expert report that qualifies the central allegation is not mentioned in the order.
4 · Why no expert assessment took place
‘ruled out from the outset’
Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) order of 18.08.2026, 2 Ws 111/26 — Annex 194_F2.
What this establishesOn this reasoning, the Division considers an expert report under § 454 para. 2 StPO unnecessary: because suspension of the sentence is ruled out anyway, no expert is needed. It is ruled out because of the attribution in point 1.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationProcedural economy. If a decision is settled on several independent grounds, an expert report need not be obtained — this is common practice and unobjectionable in itself.
What is missingThe circle remains unresolved: the expert report would have been the means of examining the attribution which is itself the reason not to obtain it.
5 · The price of restoring video contact
‘did not take the opportunity to refrain from this type of use of video calls in future’
Observations by JVA Heidering to Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) of 25.08.2026, page 2, proceedings 595 StVK 126/26 Vollz — Annex 205_F2.
What this establishesFrom this circumstance, the prison concludes that the three-month total ban was the least restrictive measure. According to the wording, refraining from future publications would have led to a less restrictive measure. The same submission states that the withdrawal was not a sanction for unauthorised conduct — and that the same use was ‘abusive’. At the same time, the same prison includes in its payslip for August 2026 the entry ‘journalist’ twice.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationThe prison merely describes the course of the opportunity to make representations and wishes thereby to show that it sought an agreed solution; video calls are a voluntary additional service without a statutory entitlement.
What is missingThe rule breached. To this day, no provision, instruction or condition of use that I allegedly violated has been identified to me. Without it, neither the allegation of abuse nor the measure is supported.
Addendum of 19.09.2026Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) ultimately did not follow this reasoning: by order of 11.09.2026, the decision of 22.07.2026 was set aside as unlawful. dossier on this matter.
6 · The missing list of provisions
“There is an obvious clerical error.”
Correction order of 30.07.2025 concerning the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) judgment of 22.07.2024 — Annex 65_F2.
What this establishesThe judgment lacked the mandatory list of provisions applied under § 260 para. 5 sentence 1 StPO entirely — neither after the operative part nor at the end. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) ruled on this version on 07.05.2025. The list was inserted 373 days after pronouncement and after finality. The bench issuing the correction order differed from the trial bench.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationAn editorial oversight in a lengthy judgment document that may be corrected under § 267 StPO without changing the substance of the judgment.
What is missingThe reasons. A single sentence explains neither how the omission went unnoticed for 373 days and throughout an appeal on points of law (Revision), nor why a differently constituted chamber can establish what the trial chamber intended.
7 · A record I do not know
‘record of the hearing of 24.06.2026’
Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) and the Kammergericht (Berlin Higher Regional Court) rely decisively on this record. It has never been made available to me.
What this establishesBoth courts base their decisions on part of the file that I do not know and therefore cannot challenge. The same occurs with the record of the opportunity to make representations on 17.07.2026, on which the prison relies in point 5.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationA record is an internal part of the file; access to the file for prisoners is arranged through the registry and is regularly granted on an appropriate application.
What is missingThe opportunity. Art. 103 para. 1 GG requires the person concerned to be able to comment on what supports the decision. I did not have that opportunity.
8 · The countercheck — by the prison itself
‘not the aggressor’
Letter from JVA Heidering of 19.08.2026, reference LBQ 4514-11/26 — Annex 14_F5. Received on 21.08.2026.
What this establishesAfter examining camera recordings, the prison found that I was not the attacker in the physical altercation on 05.08.2026. The suspension was lifted and lost earnings fully reimbursed. The examination took a few days. This is the only empirical examination of the impulsiveness attributed to me — and it went against the attribution.
Alternative hypothesis — the most innocuous explanationA single incident in the work setting says nothing about a prognosis of lawful conduct; the prison simply acted correctly here, which I expressly acknowledge.
What is missingThe application to the other circumstances. The same prison and the same courts that could examine a camera recording within a few days have gathered not a single piece of evidence for the attributions in point 1.
What I do not claim

Four express limitations

  • I claim no causal connection between these eight events. I place them side by side because they concern the same person and act in the same direction.
  • I do not claim that any of these decisions is unlawful. Courts decide that, not me.
  • I make no personal allegations. My criminal complaint under § 339 StGB of 02.09.2026 has not been decided; the presumption of innocence applies.
  • I do not claim that the device’s unsuitability weighs against the conviction — § 23 para. 3 StGB makes an impossible attempt punishable. The issue is how the assumption of dangerousness continues to affect sentencing and the prognosis despite the BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office) expert report.
If you wish to disagree

Every response will be published in full

The bodies concerned are informed before I publish, not afterwards. Anyone who disputes the account on this page will have their text published in full alongside mine. My own corrections also appear here, each dated: the fax number of the President of the House of Representatives was wrong for five months, and I closed the question of the information route leading to the video-call ban as answered on 08.09.2026, after the prison responded.

For journalists → · For members of parliament → · For legal professionals → · I am looking for defence counsel → · All documents →

Page status: 08.09.2026.