6 documented deceptions — declared under oath. Why does the BGH not examine my appeal — contrary to the Constitution? Why do all authorities respond only with empty platitudes?
Immediately after sentencing, VRiLG Groß and OStA Klaus Michael Wachs imposed a complete isolation regime. They actively obstructed my search for a new lawyer, prohibited all contact even with the Jewish community, and refused access to case files.
When I attempted to file appeal supplements with the court clerk on the record, they were not forwarded to the appellate court. Eventually the court clerk was expressly forbidden from accepting them from me at all.
During the trial itself I filed a criminal complaint against Detective Weiß, who had knowingly given false testimony in court. No response was forthcoming.
The Prosecutor General's Office cites the fact of my conviction as proof that there is no criminal offence — even though that conviction rests largely on the false testimony of the very same detective. The response came immediately after the death of lawyer Ingo Risch — the witness I had named in the complaint.
From the outset OStA Klaus Michael Wachs prohibited the police from investigating independently. Documented interventions:
On 30 July 2025 the verdict of 22 July 2024 was "corrected": for the first time a list of the applicable statutory provisions was added — allegedly to rectify an "obvious clerical error". In reality this was a material amendment to the operative part of a final judgment.
This means the BGH dismissed the appeal on the basis of a formally defective and incomplete verdict. The list of statutory provisions was inserted 373 days after the verdict and 84 days after the judgment became legally final.
OStA Wachs repeatedly asserted that a provocation by Russian intelligence services was implausible because nobody had anonymously informed the police of the suspect's name.
In September 2025 I learned that OStA Wachs had knowingly misled the court: there was an identification — and it came from the head of Russian state media.
On 26/27 August 2025 I filed a complaint against the "correction" decision. Instead of referring it to the Kammergericht — as required by § 306 para. 2 StPO — my documents were redirected to the Prosecutor General's Office, where no case number existed for them.
Consequence: the court of first instance can effectively shut down the lawful appeals path — without any effective judicial remedy. This violates Art. 2 para. 2 sent. 2, Art. 101 para. 1 sent. 2 and Art. 19 para. 4 of the Basic Law.