Arşiv

📂 Audio Recording — Dispute with Lawyer Over Criminal Proceedings, Withdrawal of Legal Representation and Threatened Imprisonment

STATEMENT BY ISMAIL RUSTAM Historical Background of the Conflict with My Lawyer, Withdrawal from Representation, Contradictions in Court Representation, and My Position Regarding the Recorded Conversation This statement is my personal explanation of the circumstances preceding the recorded conversation with the lawyer, the conversation itself, and the contradictions that arose concerning my legal representation. I particularly emphasise that my German is not always grammatically correct. However, this does not mean that my explanations were incomprehensible to the lawyer. I repeatedly, consistently and clearly explained what I required: written confirmation that his legal representation had ended so that another lawyer could defend me in court. I firmly believe that the lawyer understood my demands but repeatedly avoided the central issue by returning to the subjects of free public transport, my disability identification card and the Wertmarke. 1. The Lawyer’s Initial Acceptance of My Case I approached this lawyer after other lawyers had refused to take my criminal case concerning the use of public transport. I showed him the court documents and my disability identification card confirming my officially recognised disability rating of GdB 100. After examining the documents, the lawyer initially agreed to take the case and, according to my recollection, stated that imposing criminal punishment on me under these circumstances was unlawful. We agreed on payment, and I gave him €100. He subsequently submitted the relevant appeal to the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin). 2. The Unexpected Demand to Withdraw the Appeal Approximately one week later, the lawyer telephoned me and urgently demanded that I come to his office. During our meeting, he stated that the appeal had to be withdrawn. I categorically refused. I explained that withdrawing the appeal could result in the adverse decision of the District Court (Amtsgericht) remaining in force and being enforced, including the risk of imprisonment. According to my recollection, the lawyer confirmed that withdrawal would bring the relevant proceedings to an end. I stated that I did not agree to such an outcome. The lawyer then informed me that he would no longer defend me and told me to find another lawyer. 3. The Document Handwritten by the Lawyer on 2 November During that meeting, the lawyer took an official document in his possession and personally wrote a statement at the bottom, using his own ballpoint pen, indicating that I was refusing his legal representation. He demanded that I sign it. I signed the document, although the initiative to terminate the representation had come from him. I agreed to sign under one specific condition: the lawyer would not withdraw the appeal already submitted, would not obstruct the continuation of the proceedings, and would allow me to find another lawyer independently. According to my recollection, the lawyer accepted this condition and stated that he would no longer defend me. This document exists among my archived records. Its original wording, date, handwriting and signatures must be examined. 4. The Involvement of Other Lawyers and a New Contradiction Afterwards, I continued searching for legal assistance. One lawyer temporarily entered the proceedings to preserve my procedural opportunities while I searched for permanent representation. Later, with the assistance of another female lawyer, I found a woman lawyer who agreed to take my case. However, an unexpected problem arose. Despite the earlier agreement to terminate his representation, the first lawyer continued to be recorded as participating in the court proceedings. The new lawyer informed me that written confirmation from him was necessary to resolve the situation. That was precisely why I returned to the first lawyer’s office. 5. The Main Reason for the Recorded Confrontation I did not visit his office to discuss the conditions for free public transport again. My demand was specific: Provide me with written confirmation that you are no longer my lawyer and will no longer represent me in court. I repeatedly reminded him of our earlier agreement of 2 November. I explicitly stated that he had personally written the relevant statement with his own pen and that I had signed it. During the recorded conversation, the lawyer acknowledged remembering the document and the circumstances of the earlier discussion, yet continued to refer to the court’s position that he remained my lawyer. For me, this was a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, he had previously stated that he would no longer defend me and had required me to sign the corresponding document. On the other hand, he subsequently continued to insist on remaining involved in the proceedings. 6. The Lawyer’s Behaviour During the Conversation Throughout the conversation, the lawyer repeatedly demanded that I leave his office. He used expressions corresponding to “Verlassen Sie bitte das Büro” and “Verlassen Sie jetzt bitte das Büro.” He also repeatedly stated that I did not understand anything, using the expression “Sie kapieren das nicht.” He referred to alleged conversations with other lawyers, including Ms Kaufmann, and claimed that they also believed I did not understand the situation. I dispute this portrayal of my position. It was the new lawyer herself who directed me to him to obtain written confirmation of the termination of representation. I therefore demand clarification of what was actually said during the alleged telephone conversations between the lawyers. Furthermore, according to my account, repeated sounds of a ballpoint pen striking the surface of the desk are audible in the original audio recording. These recurring sounds accompany the confrontation. I perceived the lawyer’s behaviour as an expression of considerable tension, irritation and a desire to make me leave his office without resolving the central issue. 7. The Contradiction Between His Continued Involvement in the Case and His Refusal to Defend Me I consider the following contradiction particularly serious. The lawyer continued to refer to the court’s requirement that he remain involved in the proceedings. At the same time, he stated that my case had no prospects of success, that I was personally responsible for the criminal sanctions imposed on me, and that I should have obtained a Wertmarke. I repeatedly explained that I had attempted to obtain the necessary public transport concessions, but that the responsible state authorities had not granted them to me. I also reminded him of my officially recognised disability rating of GdB 100, my serious illnesses, and my lack of financial resources. Instead of addressing the termination of his legal representation, the lawyer repeatedly returned to the subject of travelling without a valid ticket. I repeatedly asked him whether his position meant that I would have to go to prison despite my serious medical conditions. He responded that I was personally to blame and repeated his instructions concerning the Wertmarke. Thus, from my perspective, an unacceptable situation had arisen: the lawyer was unwilling to defend my legal position while simultaneously remaining involved in the proceedings, thereby preventing a clear and formal transition to another legal representative. 8. Why I Repeatedly Asked About Imprisonment My questions about possible imprisonment were neither accidental nor incoherent. I was attempting to establish the specific consequences of the lawyer’s position. If he believed that the criminal judgment should remain in force, did not intend to challenge it, and at the same time refused to terminate his representation, how was I supposed to defend myself? That is precisely why I repeatedly asked: “So, does that mean I have to go to prison?” “Does that mean I have to go to prison with all my serious illnesses?” Through these questions, I was pointing out the contradiction between the lawyer’s duty to defend my interests and the position he was actually taking during the conversation. 9. My Repeated Demands for Written Termination of Legal Representation Throughout the conversation, I repeatedly returned to one specific question: “Do I have the right to terminate your representation?” “Do I have the right to receive written confirmation?” “You are no longer my lawyer. Put that in writing.” When I referred to the end of my life, I was attempting to explain that I could not remain tied to one lawyer against my will for the rest of my life. However, the lawyer once again redirected the conversation towards future penalties for using public transport. This further demonstrates that we were addressing two different matters. I was speaking about the termination of legal representation. He continued speaking about the Wertmarke and criminal penalties. Towards the end of the conversation, the lawyer agreed that he could provide written confirmation. I explained that I was waiting for this document because I needed to contact another lawyer in connection with an upcoming court hearing. The lawyer maintained that the hearing had been cancelled. According to my recollection, at the end of the conversation he stood up from his chair and attempted to make me leave his office. I cannot now recall with certainty whether I received the written confirmation at that time or subsequently provided the other lawyer only with the audio recording. This question must be established through the surviving documents. 10. My Suspicions Concerning the Interaction Between the Lawyer and the Court I raise a serious accusation concerning the contradictory behaviour of the lawyer and the actions of the court. Initially, the lawyer agreed to challenge the adverse judicial decision. Subsequently, after contact with the court, he demanded that the appeal be withdrawn. When I refused, he declared that he would no longer defend me and personally prepared a handwritten document that I signed. However, after other lawyers became involved, he continued to remain in the proceedings and referred to the court’s position. I consider this sequence of events sufficient grounds to demand an investigation into a possible prior understanding, agreement, or improper interaction between the lawyer and the responsible participants in the judicial proceedings. I do not possess independent confirmation of the content of their communications, but I explicitly raise the question: why did a lawyer who had previously withdrawn from defending me subsequently continue to insist on his involvement? Why did the court continue to treat him as my legal representative after other lawyers had entered the proceedings? Why did the written document of 2 November not result in a clear termination of his representation? And why did the lawyer simultaneously refuse to support my legal position while continuing to insist that his participation in the proceedings was necessary? I demand that these circumstances be investigated on the basis of the complete court records, correspondence, notifications of legal representation, the document dated 2 November, and the original audio recording. 11. Final Statement I categorically reject any portrayal suggesting that the main cause of the conflict was my inability to understand German or the legal situation. Despite occasional grammatical mistakes, I consistently and clearly expressed my position. I demanded the termination of representation by a lawyer who had previously declared that he would no longer defend me. I demanded written confirmation necessary for another lawyer to take over my defence. I refused to agree to the withdrawal of the judicial appeal because I feared that the adverse decision would become enforceable and could result in my imprisonment. I drew attention to my disability, my illnesses, and my previously submitted applications for public transport concessions. Each of these issues has independent significance. I consider it necessary to examine not merely isolated statements but the entire sequence of events, including the lawyer’s initial acceptance of the case, his demand to withdraw the appeal, the document of 2 November, the involvement of new lawyers, the court’s position, and the recorded confrontation. I demand that it be established why a lawyer who had previously declared that he was terminating my defence continued to remain involved in the judicial proceedings, and what circumstances determined that position. Ismail Rustam