Arşiv

📂 My Correspondence with the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin Since 17 February 2026 – Failure to Investigate the Criminal Complaint, Continuing Prosecutorial Inaction and Suspected Procedural Irregularities – Case No. 121 Zs 139/26

Explanation of the Folder This folder contains, in chronological order, my correspondence with the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin concerning the failure to investigate the criminal complaint that I lodged with Berlin Police, LKA 121, on 19 December 2025 under reference number 251219-1346-467062, as well as the additional materials that I subsequently submitted to that authority. The matter initially reached the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin in connection with my application to the Kammergericht Berlin. I had complained to the Kammergericht about the continuing inaction at police and prosecutorial level, the failure to investigate my criminal complaint, the failure to collect evidence, and the failure to arrange an independent forensic medical examination. The documents I submitted to the Kammergericht specifically identified the Berlin Criminal Police reference number 251219-1346-467062. On 17 February 2026, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin sent me an official letter. The letter identified the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft case number 121 Zs 139/26 and referred to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin matter 253 AR 31/26. The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft also referred to my complaint dated 13 January 2026 and informed me that the matter had been registered there under reference number 121 Zs 139/26. scan_20260623134328-151438.pdf Accordingly, by that stage the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft was officially aware of the existence of the matter and of its connection with the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin. The Kammergericht’s subsequent letter of 24 February 2026 further shows that, on 18 February 2026, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft informed the Kammergericht that no corresponding Ermittlungsverfahren was yet pending at the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin and that the matter apparently remained under police processing. In the same letter, the Kammergericht stated that the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft had announced that it would forward the submitted documents to the appropriate authority. scan_20260623134522-151630.pdf This fact is of particular importance because the substance of the materials that had reached the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft concerned precisely the failure to investigate my criminal complaint and the continuing inaction. I had applied to the Kammergericht because, after lodging my criminal complaint with the police on 19 December 2025, I had not been summoned, as promised, to provide an additional statement and submit evidence; the WhatsApp communications, audio recordings, videos, photographs and other materials in my possession had not been collected; and no concrete criminal investigation known to me had been initiated. During the police interview, I had been informed that the matter would be forwarded to the prosecutor and that the prosecutor would decide under which criminal allegations my complaint would proceed. I therefore expected the matter to be transferred to the public prosecutor’s office and investigated. Subsequent events, however, showed that neither the additional evidence that the police had promised to collect from me was collected nor, at that stage, had a corresponding criminal investigation been opened at the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin. The Kammergericht’s letter of 24 February documented this on the basis of information received from the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft. scan_20260623134522-151630.pdf A further significant contradiction then arose. Despite the materials submitted to the Kammergericht having been forwarded to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft, the Staatsanwaltschaft subsequently stated in its correspondence that it was unable to identify the specific case and proceedings concerned and requested that I again specify the particular court/authority and case reference number. From my perspective, this constituted a particularly serious contradiction. The materials forwarded to the Staatsanwaltschaft through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft already contained the substance of my complaint and the Berlin Criminal Police reference number 251219-1346-467062. Moreover, the central subject of my application was precisely that no criminal investigation had been opened, that the police had not summoned me to provide an additional statement, and that important evidence in my possession had not been collected. In other words, asking me to identify a prosecutorial investigation reference that did not exist did not address the very problem I had raised: I was complaining precisely about the failure to investigate my criminal complaint and the absence of a corresponding Ermittlungsverfahren at the public prosecutor’s office. This situation was even more serious in light of the matters that I reported as having occurred during the police intake and that I subsequently raised separately in my written submissions. I stated that two different documentary versions of the same criminal complaint had been prepared during the police intake; that I was provided only with the version relating to fraud; that I was asked to sign a police form whose substantive text section was blank; that I was prevented from photographing that signed blank document; and that no copy of it was subsequently provided to me. I also requested clarification of what had later been written in the blank section. In my assessment, these circumstances could not simply be treated as an ordinary administrative delay and raised serious procedural questions requiring an independent investigation. If, as the police officer had told me, the prosecutor was to decide under which criminal allegations my complaint would proceed, it was also necessary to determine what role, if any, the public prosecutor’s office had played in this process. If no such instruction had come from the prosecutor, the events during the police intake required separate investigation. If any instruction had been issued by the prosecutor, its content and legal basis needed to be established. For me, the central issue was not to speculate, but to determine how the document that I had signed while its substantive section was blank was subsequently used and in what actual form and content my criminal complaint was officially recorded. For precisely this reason, I also submitted to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin the extensive Stellungnahme that I had addressed to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin on 23 March 2026. The covering letter prepared for the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft expressly identified case number 121 Zs 139/26 and was officially received and stamped on 25 March 2026. I stated that the attached Stellungnahme concerned my criminal complaint of 19 December 2025, the manner in which that complaint had been received by the police, the preservation of evidence, and the course of the investigation up to that point. I also brought to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft’s attention that the attached Stellungnahme contained specific indications of possible procedural irregularities and unresolved questions which, in my assessment, required clarification. scan_20260623134234-151349.pdf My purpose in submitting this document to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft was not merely to have it retained or archived. I wanted to demonstrate that the inaction in the matter which had already been transmitted to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft’s involvement was continuing, and I wanted the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft to address the matter again in light of this new situation. Although the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft was already aware of the substance of the matter, the police reference number and the nature of the inaction about which I was complaining, the subsequent prosecutorial correspondence showed that the matter still had not progressed. From my perspective, in such circumstances the role of the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft should not have ended merely with forwarding documents to the lower public prosecutor’s office. It required clarification why the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin, after receiving the materials, was still stating that it could not determine which matter was concerned; why no investigation into the criminal complaint had been conducted; why the evidence that the police had promised to collect from the complainant had not been obtained; and why the serious procedural issues that I had raised concerning the police intake had not been investigated. The situation was particularly serious because this was not merely a question of documents being transferred from one state authority to another. I had reported a serious medical condition, loss of chewing function, continuing medical harm and the danger that evidence could be lost with the passage of time. In my submissions I had also provided information concerning HIV/AIDS, a previous myocardial infarction and surgery, chronic prostatitis, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis, hepatitis A affecting the liver, chronic sinusitis, gastrointestinal illnesses, a serious medical suspicion of oncological disease, and other serious medical conditions, and had explained that these circumstances substantially increased the urgency of the matter. For these reasons, I had requested that the evidence be preserved without delay, that an investigation be conducted and that an independent forensic medical examination be ordered. My initial application to the Kammergericht likewise requested urgent investigation, preservation of evidence and an independent forensic medical assessment because of these circumstances. scan_20260623135312-152426.pdf These circumstances were not merely informational for the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft and the Staatsanwaltschaft. Under the principle of legality (Legalitätsprinzip) embodied in § 152(2) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), unless otherwise provided by law, the public prosecutor’s office is obliged to take action in relation to prosecutable criminal offences where sufficient factual indications exist. Under § 160(1) StPO, once the public prosecutor’s office becomes aware, through a criminal complaint or by other means, of circumstances giving rise to suspicion of a criminal offence, it must investigate the facts in order to determine whether public charges should be brought. § 160(2) StPO further requires the prosecution to investigate both incriminating and exonerating circumstances and to ensure that evidence which may be lost is obtained and preserved. Accordingly, from my perspective, where the materials I submitted contained indications of possible criminal conduct, serious procedural questions concerning my being asked to sign a document whose substantive section was blank during the police intake, evidence that had not been collected, and information concerning serious risks to my health and life, the matter should not simply have been transferred from one authority to another and left without substantive resolution. It should have been investigated within the framework of § 152(2) and § 160 StPO, and evidence at risk of being lost should have been secured. After I submitted my extensive Stellungnahme and this new information to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin on 25 March 2026 under case number 121 Zs 139/26, I received no further substantive response from the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft concerning that submission up to 20 September 2026. Accordingly, the documents in this folder establish a connected chronological sequence: the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft received and registered the matter under 121 Zs 139/26, referred to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin matter 253 AR 31/26, and informed the Kammergericht that at that time no corresponding criminal investigation was pending at the Staatsanwaltschaft; the materials were to be forwarded appropriately; and I subsequently submitted to the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft again the continuing problem revealed by the lower prosecutor’s later correspondence, together with my extensive Stellungnahme. In my assessment, this documented sequence represents more than routine administrative correspondence between different law-enforcement authorities. The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft and Staatsanwaltschaft are professional prosecutorial authorities, and the materials submitted to them specifically identified the criminal complaint reference number, the nature of the alleged inaction, the evidence that had not been collected, the serious procedural events that I reported as having occurred during the police intake, and the serious and urgent medical circumstances. German criminal procedure also imposes duties on prosecutorial authorities under § 152(2) and § 160 StPO when sufficient factual indications of a prosecutable offence are present and requires relevant facts and evidence at risk of loss to be investigated and secured. Nevertheless, the absence of an investigation known to me and the fact that, after I again brought all of these matters to the attention of the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft on 25 March 2026, I received no further substantive response up to 20 September 2026, give rise, in my assessment, to serious concerns about a possible deliberate institutional cover-up. The documents contained in this folder record the factual and chronological basis for those concerns; whether there was deliberate concealment or criminal responsibility requires an independent investigation and legal determination.