Silence of the Senatsverwaltung für Justiz (Senate Administration for Justice) and the Regional Court President
Further evidence of the same basic pattern — a supervisory body answers a specific substantive question without examining its substance — this time in the Senate Administration itself: in response to my request of 02.09.2026 to clarify the information route leading to the ban on my video calls, case officer Ms Hehmann replied on 14.09.2026 that there was ‘no reason’ to enquire because I publicised my activities myself — without mentioning the Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I) order issued only three days earlier, which had already set aside the underlying decision as unlawful. In detail: Ms Hehmann dossier · Annex 220_F2.
Several service-supervision complaints (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerden) against presiding Regional Court judge Groß (VRiLG) received no substantive answer for months — and when an answer came, it addressed none of the specifically presented facts.
Lodged concerning the subsequent alteration of the judgment’s operative part (correction order 30.07.2025, 373 days after pronouncement) and missing acknowledgements of receipt for several applications.
After almost ten months: ‘No indications of conduct relevant to service supervision.’ Based solely on a reference to judicial independence (§ 26 para. 1 DRiG, Art. 97 para. 1 GG) — without examining the individual facts I documented.
‘In the exercise of service supervision, I am not entitled to examine the manner in which the judges involved conduct proceedings.’
The same presiding judge had already been the subject of an earlier service-supervision complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde), also rejected without reference to the facts (rejected 06.05.2025) — the pattern recurs across several levels: prison (JVA) → Regional Court presidency (Landgerichtspräsidium) → Senate Administration.
Again: an official response from the judge responsible was obtained but neither sent to me nor disclosed in substance. The result was again: no conduct relevant to service supervision discernible.
Assessment
Across three successive service-supervision complaints (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerden) (2025–2026), not a single fact specifically presented by me is disputed — they are simply not mentioned. Each answer instead refers generally to judicial independence or already completed legal-remedy proceedings. This is my assessment of the recurring response pattern, based on the exact wording of the three decisions.