The following list describes the extraordinary way that Gustl Mollath ended
up in Bavarian psychiatric institutions.
On behalf of Gustl Mollath we would like to thank those persons who
followed their conscience and acted in compliance with the law.
The following chronology has been set up according to known records or according
to statements made by Mollath himself.
With only a few exceptions, the literal quotes have been excerpted
from original documents (see the facsimile-DFs). Since not all documents
are known, this chronology makes no claim to completeness and is
continually being revised.
In contrast to the information in News
(from the Asylum) where media reports, comments, etc. are to be found, the
chronology focuses primarily on the legally relevant events of Mollath's life.
Last update: 2013-08-04
Applications, court proceedings,
Sentences and rulings
Opinions and report
Inpatient custody in closed
Bavarian psychiatric wards
Measures taken by
- 1956 Gustl Ferdinand Mollath was born in Nurnberg, Germany.
He went to the Rudolf Steiner school in Nurnberg and Herne. 1976 Second-best
vocational diploma, then study of mechanical engineering.
- 1991 he marries Petra Mollath.
- 1983 – 2000 Gustl Mollath is self-employed, carrying
out tune-ups for sports cars (previous to this he worked in the Controlling
area of the company MAN).
- 1990 – 2002 Petra Mollath is an employee of a large bank
in Nürnberg, in the area of wealth management consulting. One of her duties
was to manage the assets of customers and maintain contacts with subsidiaries
in Switzerland. In the 90s, she begins to build up a clientele and to transfer
customer funds to Switzerland via direct investments. For example, on Dec.
19th, 2001 she instructs her bank to carry out transfers to various Swiss
accounts, with a total value of DM 115,000. These funds are transferred using
instructions passed via the home fax of the Mollaths. Furthermore, she also
transfers cash across the border personally. In 1996, Mollath, his wife and
other colleagues take part in an investment seminar in Switzerland. The bank
employees are urged to request customers to permit them to carry their unreported
income (i.e. money to be laundered) to Switzerland for them. Initially, Mollath
accompanied his wife on such courier trips.
- For Gustl Mollath, money transfers on such a large scale - many
hundreds of millions of German Marks from all of Germany - are
incompatible with his political views. He also fears legal consequences,
for his wife as well as for himself. He forbids his wife to carry
out such money transfers using his cars.
- 2000-03-14 Gustl Mollath leaves the church in a letter
to Pope John Paul II. The reason: The position of the church (in particular
that of cardinals Lehmann and Ratzinger) on the German participation
in the Kosovo
- 2001 Mollath admonishes his wife, and also the bankers
in Germany and Switzerland, for about a year, to stop these illegal
practices. Unfortunately with no success. Correspondence 2002 [PDF
- His wife Petra, who at this point is also doing her own private
asset consulting behind the back of her employer, the HypoVereinsbank,
puts tremendous pressure on him to not reveal her illegal doings.
- 2001-08-12 The day of the alleged physical dispute between
the Mollaths. Petra Mollath claims that on this day, her husband
beat and bit her and strangled her until she was unconscious
(the medical certificate for this day, however, is not drawn up until much
later, on June 3, 2002. In the Sentence
of August 8, 2006 page
3 says that this criminal act was carried out in 2004 (!): "The
accused beat his wife on August 12, 2004 (...) " (acting on the
assumption of this wrong date, the period between these acts
and the custody in the psychiatric ward in February of 2005 seems
relatively short. In fact, there is no criminal charge of assault since 2001).
- 2001-08-14 Petra Mollath states in the medical practice
of Dr. Madleine Reichel that she had been hit, strangled and bit, etc. by
Mollath. The doctor certifies, among other things, a wound with teeth marks
on it. But Petra Mollath continues to live with her husband.
- 2002-05 Mollath's wife moves out of the common domicile.
- 2002-05-31 The day of the "wrongful deprivation
of liberty": Gustl
Mollath allegedly kept his wife prisoner in their common home
for 1.5 hours, until a friend of Petra Mollath, who worked as a receptionist
in the practice of Dr. Reichel [see
9. above] rang the doorbell as agreed after said time
of 1.5 hours.
- 2002-05-31 Petra Mollath tells Eduard Braun, a dentist
friend of the Mollaths, on the phone: "If Gustl presses
charges against me and my bank, I will finish him off. I have
very good connections. I will press charges against him too,
you can tell him that. He's just nuts. I will have his mental state checked,
then I will pin something on him, I know how that goes. If Gustl shuts up,
then he can keep 500.000 euros of his assets. That is my last word."
(This statement was made Under Oath by Edward Braun.)
- 2002-06-03 A medical certificate, ostensibly by Dr.
Madeleine Reichel, is drawn up for Petra Mollath, for the alleged
incidents of August 12, 2012 (that is, almost ten months later!).
The certificate contains a description of the sequence of events,
for example, slaps etc. It later emerged that the certificate
was prepared by the son of Dr. Reichel [see
Telepolis: Public Prosecutor Requests Retrial].
- 2002-08-08 Petra Mollath faxes the certificate of June
6, 2002 (for the alleged bodily injury on August 12, 2001) without any
further comment to Gustl Mollath. Gustl Mollath interprets this
as a clear attempt to blackmail him, in order to "enable
the continuation of criminal acts in connection with the money
laundering of unreported income."
- 2002-08-12 Mollath refuses to back down and for the
last time appeals to the bank management of the Credit Suisse Group and
the HypoVereinsbank; among others, he contacted the then Chairman
of the Board Dieter Rampl (in the letter of November 27, 2002):
".. For years, these dealings have put a strain on me, emotionally
and thus also physically. Not to speak of all the legal problems
involved. For years, I have not been able to convince my wife to abandon dealings
such as these and return to legal activities. Since my extensive attempts to
do so have been unsuccessful, I must request your help and advice. How can I,
without consequences for you or others, get my wife to return
to legal terrain? (...)" Mr. Rampl does not answer. As it later turns
out, Ms. Mollath and other involved persons were forced to leave the HVB Group.
In 2003, the HypoVereinsbank ordered an internal revision of these activities,
in order to clarify the goings-on with respect to the allegations of Gustl Mollath.
Report of the HypoVereinsbank, which had been kept secret and did not surface
until November 2012, confirms the allegations made by Gustl Mollath: "All
verifiable claims have turned out to be correct".
[see the excerpts
from the newspaper article: The bank itself took these serious accusations
more seriously than the Justice Department] and here:
of Gustl Mollath to the banks 2002
- 2002-11-23 Gustl Mollath visits his wife's brother and
asks him to convince his sister Petra to give up her illegal financial
dealings. Her brother, however, insulted and hit him. Gustl is
signed off sick for several days and has a medical certificate issued for
his injuries. Subsequently, Gustl Mollath files charges against Petra Mollath's
brother for criminal assault. On this day, Gustl Mollath is accused of stealing
his wife's letters from the mailbox of his brother-in-law.
- 2002-11 Charges pressed by Petra Mollath against Gustl
Mollath for robbery of letters of November 23, 2002 (not for physical
assault, as the sentence of August 8, 2006 states).
- 2002-12-09 Gustl Mollath writes to Director Rötzer (the
head of the bank branch responsible for business with private clients)
that he had requested him the week before to call upon Ms. Mollath
to stop the illegal Swiss money transfers. He now again requests
the same thing. And he would like his wife to stop the highly
speculative financial dealings at the HypoVereinsbank and the Credit Suisse.
- 2003-01-02 Petra Mollath tells the police in Nurnberg-Ost
that her husband has live firearms which are unregistered, stemming
from the inheritance from his mother.
- 2003-01-15 The police interrogation of witnesses in
Nürnberg for the above weapons opens: Petra Mollath presses charges for
the events of December 8, 2001 and May 31, 2002.
- 2003-02-19 Although Herr Mollath has no criminal record,
twelve (!) police officers conduct a raid on his house. This house search
(court order of January 1, 2003) produced an air gun not requiring
a permit, which remains in the house.
on house search
- 2003-02-22 Gustl Mollath asks the court whether employees
of the HypoVereinsbank or Credit Suisse had anything to do with
the house raid.
- 2003-03-17 The HypoVereinsbank takes the Mollath statement
on laundered money transfers seriously and draws up an Audit
report which states, among other things: "All verifiable claims (made by
Gustl Mollath) have turned out to be correct." Those in charge
at the HypoVereinsbank now decide to keep this report confidential; it remains
confidential until it is published by the Süddeutschen
Zeitung and Report
Mainz on November 13, 2012.
- 2003-03-19 Gustl Mollath writes an open
letter to "former
German president Theodor Heuss" resp. Guido Westerwelle and Wolfgang
Gerhard. This obvious satire, motivated by Mollath's pacifism, serves
as a means to denounce Gustl Mollath on the part of judicial
and political figures.
- 2003-05-15 Petra Mollath says before the investigating
judge in Berlin-Tiergarten that, among other things: she did "not
believe that it was bleeding", before being strangled and bitten,
however, she had surely been beaten by his fists at least 20 times and to
have strangled her unconscious, after which she grabbed him, "where
- 2003-05-23 Indictment for mayhem (August 12, 2001) and
deprivation of liberty coupled with physical assault (May 31, 2002): Gustl
Mollath, the indictment states, hit his wife at least 20 times with his fists
on the entire body, and bit her so hard that the bleeding bite wound has
left a scar to this day; furthermore, the indictment claims, he strangled
her until she was unconscious.
- 2003-05-23 Together with a friend, the lawyer Dr. Woertge
and a further person (whom Gustl Mollath held for a furniture mover), Petra
Mollath attempts to gain access to the house of Gustl Mollath, in order to
do away with possible documentary evidence of the laundering transactions.
- Furthermore, with respect to the person presumed to be
a furniture mover (see above), it turns out that this person is the lover
of Ms. Mollath, at that time a manager of the real estate division
of the HypoVereinsbank Group (which was subsequently spun off to the HypoRealEstate
Bank). Until this point in time, Gustl Mollath was interested
in protecting his wife.
- 2003-06-11 Within the course of the divorce proceedings,
Gustl Mollath writes to the family court (divorce judge), disclosing
the information on tax evasion, transfers of laundered money
and insider dealings: "The
activities of my wife were divided into official tasks involving
taxation by the German tax authorities, and unofficial, unnamed tasks leading
to non-taxation for herself and for her customers" [see
the detailed charges in the document written to the Chief Public Prosecutor
- 2003-09-11 Gustl Mollath writes a letter
to the mayor of Nürnberg Mr. Maly, in which he avows himself to be a libertarian anti-fascist
and advocates more grassroots democracy in Germany.
- 2003-09-23 Fax of Petra Mollath's lawyer, Dr. Woertge,
to the local court with a medical opinion of Dr. Krach (Clinic at the
Europe Canal, Erlangen), that Petra Mollath's husband is suffering
from a serious psychiatric disease "with great probability", and would require further neurological
examination. This diagnosis is based solely on the allegations made by Mollath's
wife [remote diagnosis, also see: Article
of the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the Herrmann case].
- 2003-09-23 (!) The Public Prosecutor of Nurnberg-Fürth
arraigns Gustl Mollath.
- 2003-09-25 Trial proceedings in the district court of
Nürnberg for criminal assault. The court decides to suspend proceedings
(!) and orders the forensic expert Thomas Lippert to draw up
a psychological opinion to determine whether the medical prerequisites
for examination applied on August 12, 2001 and May 31, 2002,
according to German law §§ 21,20 criminal code. On the same day,
Gustl Mollath files a complaint against this verdict.
Gustl Mollath gives the court a written defense (which is incorrectly
called a complaint in the further proceedings) together with
other documents (personal vita with details on Swiss banking
dealings and correspondence with banks, requesting them to stop
such dealings). ".. the accused
gave the court written submissions in a binder, to be used for
his defense, but which are not in any way connected with the accusations
of the case." [quoted
of August 8, 2008]
- 2003-10-26 Gustl Mollath writes to Judge Huber that he
thinks he is to be gagged due to his knowledge of the money laundering
- 2003-10-29 The County Court of Nürnberg-Fürth rejects
the complaint of Gustl Mollath against the ruling of September 25, 2003 as
- 2003-12-03 As the assigned counsel for Gustl Mollath,
the court appoints Thomas Dolmany.
- 2003-12-09 Gustl Mollath makes a
complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Nürnberg/Fürth. In the complaint,
he specifically names the transactions of tax evasion, illegal transfers
of funds to Switzerland and insider dealings within the context of the HypoVereinsbank
and his wife's work there. (file reference: 509 Js 182/04)
He supports his complaint with detailed information on the above
dealings and provides a long list of all participants in such
dealings [see the charges pressed by Chief Public
Prosecutor Neumann on this day, with a similar content].
- 2004 Divorce of Gustl and Petra Mollath.
- 2004-01-26 The forensic expert Thomas Lippert writes to
the court stating that Gustl Mollath did not appear for assessment, so
assessment can therefore only be made in the form of a police-led
- 2004-02-19 The charges pressed by Gustl Mollath on December
12, 2003 are dropped by the public prosecutor on the grounds that
there is „insufficient actual evidence for the case", there is only an "overall
the allegations are "not specific" and did not result in "any
assessment approach that would justify initiating preliminary
Rejection of Charges Pressed]
[Here, also see the Statement
[Video] von Dr. Schlötterer, a
member of the CSU party and a former high-level tax inspector
- For this reason, a further complaint is lodged by Gustl
Mollath against the public prosecutor Dr. Fili and Ms. Stengel of the
Public Attorney's office in Nürnberg-Fürth for obstruction of
justice according to § 258a of the German penal code. This complaint
is also rejected by the court.
- 2004-04-22 Second trial before the local court of Nürnberg-Fürth
for the criminal charge of physical assault of his wife. Gustl
Mollath files a petition to have his assigned counsel discharged,
the petition is rejected. The forensic expert Dr. Thomas Lippert,
who had heard Gustl Mollath speak during the trial and seen that
there was nothing that could be considered an expert opinion,
states the following: The accused has a serious mental illness,
probably a psychosis. The prospects are not good, since the accused "has
no awareness of being ill". The danger to uninvolved victims persists,
so that only an in-patient supervision would be able to obtain further insights.
The court orders Mollath to be interned in the Clinic at the Europe Canal
according to § 81 of the German Criminal Code. It further orders Dr. med.
Wörthmüller, the head of the forensics department in the clinic, to prepare
a forensic opinion on Mollath. As soon as the purpose of the internment has
been reached, Mollath is to be released.
on the creation of expert opinions]
[Enforcement of the asylum commitment by the Nürnberg criminal
- 2004-04-22 Gustl Mollath writes to the
Prime Minister of Bavaria, Edmund Stoiber, and informs him of
the illicit money transfers and tax evasion dealings. [Letter
to Prime Minister Dr. Edmund Stoiber]
- 2004-05-13 The public prosecutor sends legal file extracts
to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice.
- 2004-05-26 The appeal made by Gustl Mollath against the
court order of April 22, 2004, is rejected.
- 2004-06-30 Gustl Mollath is detained and taken to the
District Clinic at the Europe Canal in Erlangen. Mollath is not permitted
to take anything with him, he is not permitted to make any phone
calls, and nobody knew where he was.
- 2004-07-01 During the internment in this clinic, Dr. Wörthmüller
states that he is biased due to his friendship with Bernhard
Roggenhofer (a former customer of Petra Mollath and the HypoVereinsbank).
This statement is not faxed to the court by Dr. Werthmüller until
May 5th, that is, four days later.
[Statement of recusal on the part of Dr. med Wörthmüller]
- 2004-07-07 Request of the Public Prosecutor to dismiss
Mollath from the clinic, after consulting with judge Eberl. The court
orders the end of internment in the Erlanger forensic clinic
due to the bias of Dr. Wörthmüller. The order to create a forensic
expertise is also reversed, Gustl Mollath is released.
The internment of Mollath in the clinic for the purposes of inpatient
observation is countermanded, since due to the explicit bias
of Dr. Wörthmüller, the purpose of the internment, namely a forensic
expertise, cannot be fulfilled. Instead of ordering the clinic
in Erlangen to carry out such an expert opinion, Dr. Wörthmüller
was ordered personally to do so, which means that now Mollath
must be released from the clinic and a new court order must now
- 2004-07-08 Lawyer Ophoff becomes the new lawyer of choice
of Gustl Mollath
[Source: Request for retrial on the part of Lawyer Strate, see
- 2004-07-14 The local court of Nürnberg sends the files to Dr. Leipziger,
as per the court order, with the request for a forensic opinion to be created
by Dr. Leipziger.
- 2004-08-04 Gustl Mollath sends a fax
to Dr. Woertge, in which
he rejects his methods and again orders him to stay away from
his house. During the course of the police investigations on the property
damages to automobiles [see
53], this fax is passed on to the police.
- 2004-08-27 Dr. Leipziger informs the court in Nürnberg that an
inpatient internment and evaluation of Mollath can take place
starting on September 15, 2004.
- 2004-09-02 Dr. Zappe of the District Hospital of Bayreuth returns
the initial file of Gustl Mollath.
- 2004-09-16 Judge Eberl of the Nürnberg local court issues the
order according to which Mollath can be taken to the District
Hospital of Bayreuth for observation for a maximum of five weeks. "He must be released
as soon as the purpose of the examination has been fulfilled." Dr. Leipziger
is entrusted with the task of answering the questions of whether, on August
12, 2001, May 31, 2002 and November 23, 2002, Mollath's case fulfills the
prerequisites of §§ 20,21 German Criminal Code (no or diminished criminal
responsibility) or of § 63 GCC (internment in a psychiatric hospital). The
ruling is based on the strong suspicion that Mollath had carried out the
acts he was accused of.
- 2004-10-08 Gustl Mollath's appeal to reverse this ruling and
to have his own chosen lawyer is rejected by the court.
- 2004-12-31 – 2005-02-01 The period of time in which Gustl Mollath
allegedly carried out material damage (to car tires). The following
evidence is brought forth: similar height and gait as the person
on the video, according to Petra Mollath's allegation, similar
jacket, he is a tire specialist, many damaged parties from the
same environment, divorce and illegal financial dealings.
There are no demands for compensation, which means that Gustl
Mollath has no way of rebutting the claims made against him [see
the case of Harry Wörz].
- 2005-02-04 Search of Gustl Mollath's house without a court order.
The weapon allegedly used to slit tires, which was assumed to
be in Mollath's house, was not found.
- 2005-02-07 Gustl Mollath writes to Interior Minister Beckstein
and presses charges against Public Prosecutors Dr. Fili and Mr.
Stengel for obstructing justice [Charges
against PubProsecutors Nürnberg-Fürth PDF].
- 2005-02-14 – 2005-03-21 Internment of Gustl Mollath in the District
Hospital of Bayreuth as per § 81 German Code of Criminal Procedure,
with the goal of having Dr. Leipziger draw up a forensic opinion
on Mollath, based on the court order of September 16, 2004.
The attending physician (not Dr. Leipziger) documents the initial
situation of Mollath in the police car, with hands stretched
and bound behind his back, and orders that a documentation on
the wounds be drawn up for the purpose of later proof. The charges
pressed by Gustl Mollath against the police officers involved,
for maltreatment when being transferred to the District Hospital
of Bayreuth, are nevertheless subsequently dropped.
- 2005-02-16 Dr. Leipziger tries to have a conversation with Gustl
Mollath, which the latter refuses. Mollath says he is in good
health and will not let himself be examined physically or mentally.
Furthermore, he states, he refuses to impart any important information
to Dr. Leipziger.
- 2005-03-18 Dr. Leipziger (the forensic expert ordered by the
court) calls the ward (over one month after Mollath is admitted)
and asks whether GM would now be prepared to speak to him.
- 2005-03-21 Dismissal from the District Hospital of Bayreuth
- 2005-04-26 Dr. Leipziger writes to the Public Prosecutor
of Nuremberg, after phoning with Judge Eberl, asking about "recent
investigation results on behavior of the accused that might be relevant under
criminal law aspects", in order to include such results in the forensic opinion.
- 2005-05-04 One public prosecutor makes the following written
comment: "After conferring with Judge Eberl, Dr.
Leipziger was requested to provide further documentation on other
cases, for the purpose of preparing the expertise on him."
- 2005-06-02 The Public Prosecutor of Nürnberg-Fürth sends the
dossier (on the preliminary proceedings of the case on property
damage) to Dr. Leipziger.
- 2005-06-15 The assigned counsel Mr. Dolmany requests to be freed
from acting as the defense, since mutual confidence is lacking
between him and Gustl Mollath.
Gustl Mollath had repeatedly rejected the counsel assigned to
him and provided reasons for this decision.
- 2005-07-25 Dr. Leipziger's forensic opinion: "This
examination leads us to the conclusion that the accused has
developed a paranoid thought system in several areas. Here,
specifically (...) there is the area of illicit funds transfers*,
in which the accused maintains the incorrigible stance that
a large number of persons from the banking business of his wife, she herself
and (...) further persons (....) "were
involved" in this complex
system of illicit funds transfers." [*this refutes the statement
of Justice Minister Merk that there is no connection between
the illicit-funds accusation of Mollath and his internment in
the district hospitals. See also Video
of speech held by Merk and the Charges
pressed by Gustl Mollath on this]
"In confrontation with
third parties, the accused showed strong signs of agitation, which however
did not lead to physical violence."
During the entire time that
Dr. Leipziger had to draw up the forensic opinion on Gustl Mollath,
not one single personal interview took place. This means that
the minimum standards of a forensic opinion have not been fulfilled: "After
attempts of employees to convince Mollath to let himself be examined,
also in the 11th calendar week, (...), the undersigned attempted
to carry out a systematic examination on March 18, 2005 (...).
Further attempts to examine the accused up until the end of the
time determined by the court (...) were not successful." [see psychiatric
Opinion of Dr. Weinberger and Minimal
requirements for legal culpability forensic opinions and Minimal
requirements of prognosis expertise]
- 2005-07-28 The forensic opinion of Dr. Leipziger is received
by the Higher Regional Court in Nürnberg.
- 2005-08-04 The Public Attorney requests that the motion to dismiss
the assigned counsel and to move the hearing to the district
court of Nürnberg-Fürth be accepted.
- 2005-08-11 Preliminary dismissal of the case according to § 154
Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the case pending on
- 2005-09-27 Complaint lodged against the dismissal of the case
by the associate of lawyer Dr. Woertge (counsel of Petra Mollath),
the lawyer Greger.
- 2005-10-04 Complaint lodged against the dismissal of the case by lawyer
- 2005-10-06 Arraignment of Mollath for 9 cases of property damage
and dismissal of further cases according to § 154 Code of Criminal
- 2005-12-29 The District Court of Nurnberg decides to relegate
the Mollath Case to the County Court of Nürnberg-Fürth, because
of the expected internment of Mollath.
- 2006-02-01 The court of Nürnberg-Fürth issues a provisional injunction
that Mollath is to be moved to a psychiatric hospital. This is
six months after the expert opinion, and for a man who is supposedly
dangerous to public safety. The court states: "The provisional internment of the accused
in a psychiatric hospital is mandated. (...) The pressing reasons for this
provisional internment can be taken from the preliminary expertise drawn
up by Dr. Leipziger on July 25, 2005. (..) The accused is also dangerous
to public safety."
- 2006-02-13 The court for the execution of civil judgments
in Nürnberg orders the compulsory auction of Mollath's house as
it was not known where Mollath was at the time. The marshal Mr.
Otmar Rückel gem. § 6 ZVG is ordered as the delivery representative.
Gustl Mollath (GM) war free at the time, the court order for the involuntary
internment was issued on February 1,2006. However, on February 27, 2006 (see
below), Mollath asked the police to control identifications and was then
apprehended, since which he has been in different psychiatric clinics.
- 2006-02-27 During a Monday demonstration in front of the Lorenz
church in Nürnberg, Gustl Mollath requests the police officers
on patrol there to control his ID [see police report]. Because
of his bad experiences during the episode of forced internment by the police
of Erlenstegen on June 30, 2004, Mollath wanted to anticipate
his imminent capture by these officers.
In the court sentence of August 8, 2006, however, there is a
contradiction between the above non-resisting arrest of Gustl
Mollath in his house and the sentence, which states: "(..)
Due to this court order, the defendant was able to be arrested
in his house in Volbehrstrasse 4 on February 27, 2006 (...) The defendant
could be found in the attic where he was hiding from the police behind a
- 2006-02-27 – 2006-03-02 Internment of Gustl Mollath in the District
Hospital of Erlangen.
- 2006-03-02 – 2006-04-24 Internment in the District Hospital of
- 2006-03-17 The District Court of Bayreuth issues an internment
order to the District Hospital of Bayreuth and requests that
Gustl Mollath remain there in enforcement of this order.
- 2006-03-17 Dr. Wörthmüller (who had already stated that he was
biased) writes to the Public Prosecutor that Gustl Mollath was
transferred to Bayreuth on March 2, 2006.
- 2006-03-28 Lawyer Ophoff resigns
as the lawyer of Gustl Mollath.
[see: Motion for new hearing by lawyer Strate, page 7]
- 2006-03-31 The county court of Nürnberg-Fürth
decides during a hearing that the temporary internment order is to be continued,
since the prerequisites still apply. The District Hospital of
Bayreuth states: It is not possible to speak with Gustl Mollath,
he refuses treatment, and in this way his "illness" continues.
- 2006-04-05 Dr. Zappe (Dist. Hospital Bayreuth) writes a forensic
opinion to the detriment of Gustl Mollath
- 2006-04-07 The District Court issues a restraining order that
a legal custodian be assigned to Gustl Mollath by the corresponding
office of the city of Straubing, limited until October 6, 2006.
- 2006-04-24 – 2009-05-14 Internment in District Hospital of Straubing.
- 2006-08-07 Ruling of the District Court of Nürnberg to permit
the application filed by the public prosecutor on September 6,
2006 and the opening of the case using an interim injunction
(motion made by the public attorney). This ruling is signed by
- 2006-08-08 Court case in front of the District Court
The authorized expert Leipziger convinced the court of the following
(quote from the verdict): "The actions of the defendant are characterized
by the illness of a delusory psychotic disease. It can therefore not be excluded
that at the time of the actions, the self-regulation ability
of the defendant was impaired and he is therefore not legally liable according
to §20 German Penal Code". On the other hand, when he spoke to Mollath, Dr. Leipziger
had stated the following "the defendant is psychologically aware
and oriented, with a normal consciousness and mood. No formal thinking confusion
could be confirmed. Mollath's thinking was however, characterized
by a suspicious attitude. With respect to memory, ability to remember and
concentrate, there were no abnormalities. The defendant showed no signs of
aggressive behavior." Ultimately,
the expert asserts that Mollath suffers from "a paranoid delusional
symptom complex", the diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia" should
also be taken into consideration.
(In 2012 as well, the forensic expert
from the main trial, Dr. Leipziger, had submitted an advisory opinion on
Mollath's further internment).
The court decided that Gustl Mollath carried out physical assault,
deprivation of liberty and material damage, acting with "natural
The prerequisites for diminished criminal responsibility are
certainly given in all the above cases. The prerequisites for the diminished
criminal responsibility due to emotional disturbances cannot be excluded,
the verdict states.
For this reason, the court acquits Gustl Mollath but orders his
internment in a psychiatric clinic, because "an
overall evaluation of his person and his acts give reason to
believe that he may in future commit further illegal acts and is therefore
dangerous to public safety as per § 63 German Penal Code."
sentence: "The statements on the marriage of the defendant,
the descriptions of his strange behavior and his increasing aggressiveness
are based (...) on the testimony of his ex-wife, whose credibility
is not called into question by the court". The evidence and vague
statements of those involved in the willful damage to property, however,
do not suffice to provide definitive proof that Gustl Mollath
committed these acts, which would also prove he is dangerous to public safety.
the charge of physical assault as well as the charge of deprivation
of personal liberty are based on the allegations of the ex-wife,
as well as the medical certificate of June 3, 2002 [see
According to the opinion of the court, Gustl Mollath is indicted
for material damage on the following grounds:
a) "all aggrieved parties are in some way connected to Petra M., Martin
M. (Mollath's ex-wife and her second husband) or the divorce
of the couple.
b) "all aggrieved parties, with the exception of
Thomas Lippert, are mentioned in a negative context in a letter of
the defendant to the lawyer Dr. Woertge dated August 4, 2004."
On the basis of the expert opinion of Thomas Lippert, however,
the defendant was "interned in the Clinic at the Europe Canal on April
22, 2004, as per the ruling of the District Court of Nürnberg."
c) All car tires were slit in the same way at the edge. "The
way this was done speaks for a tire specialist. The defendant (...)
had the corresponding skills."
d) "The video recordings and the clothing (...)
found in the house of the defendant do not provide clear evidence
of the perpetration of the crime on the part of the defendant, but point
additionally in the direction of the above statements."
"Furthermore, Petra M. said that
the defendant might be the perpetrator when viewing the video (...)."
(Mollath was taken to the hospital in Bayreuth because he requested that
his ID be verified (see above), and not because he was captured by force;
this is falsely stated in the ruling [see
of August 8, 2006]
- 2006-08-11 One of Mollath's lawyers files a motion to appeal
the sentence with the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe.
- 2006-10-06 End of the temporary supervision of Mollath, which
had been decreed on April 7, 2006 by the District Court of Bayreuth
by means of a provisional injunction. According to the custodian
appointed for this, the list of assets states that Mollath is the owner of
three vehicles (two cars and a motorcycle), whose whereabouts are not known.
The value of Mollath's household effects is estimated by the custodian to
be approx. 5,000 €. However, Mollath at this point values his toolkits and
spare parts to be approx. 30.000 €.
- 2006-10-06 Mollath's lawyer substantiates the appeal in a letter
to the court of Nürnberg-Fürth.
- 2007-02-13 The Federal Court of Justice rejects the appeal of
Mollath as unsubstantiated and states that: "the review of the ruling
on the basis of appealing on points of law did not lead to any legal errors
to the detriment of the defendant".
- 2007-04-03 The District Hospital of Straubing provides a medical opinion
on Mollath's request to be released immediately: He has, they state, a "delusional
- 2007-04-11 A judge from the Local Court of Straubing orders that
documents from the local hospital are not to be returned. Further
documents are requested, with resubmission within three days.
- 2007-05-14 Gustl Mollath requests that the chamber responsible
for the execution of the sentence provide a lawyer who has his
confidence, and also requests an extension of time.
- 2007-05-23 The judge, Ms. Fleischmann from the Local Court of
Straubing, answers Mollath's letter with various complaints.
She orders that the further processing of the case is to be carried
out by the Public Prosecutor in Nürnberg and requests that Mollath
be released from the hospital independently of the court hearing date.
- 2007-09-21 A forensic opinion drawn up by the Local Court of
Straubing by Dr. Simmerl (senior physician at the Local Hospital
of Mainkofen), argues against legal custodianship of Mollath.
The forced custodianship is then dropped. The forensic opinion
of Dr. Simmerl states the following about Gustl Mollath:
With the exception
of the cancellation of custodianship, this forensic opinion is subsequently
consistently ignored by the judiciary, up to Justice Minister Dr. Merk
[see Speech in Bavarian Parliament] and intentionally suppressed [see
Letter of E. Braun to Minister Dr. Merk].
- psychomotor behavior: adequate affective response, permits critical
- most certainly no schizophrenic or delusional ideas
- no sign of psychotic illness
- no affective disorders
- no thinking impairment
- no cognitive impairment
- no signs that he is not legally competent
- no need for a legal custodian
- no therapeutic options in forensic commitment
- sensible communication possible without any problems
- 2007-10-30 Judge Fleischmann of the correctional services chamber of Straubing
(District Court of Regensburg) reminds the Public Prosecutor of Nürnberg-Fürth
in the following regulation: "Attached please find the opinion of
forensic expert Dr. Simmerl of September 26, 2007, which was drawn up with
regard to the custody procedure of Mr. Mollath. As the judges in the custody
case ... told me in person, they consider it necessary to verify whether
the inpatient hospitalization continues to be necessary." [see
Original document and
the newspaper Nordbayerischer
Kurier: "Psychiatric detention also questioned
- 2008-04-17 Gustl Mollath writes a letter to the judges of the
correctional services chamber of Straubing. He describes the
history of his internment and the terrible situation in the locked psychiatric
ward in Straubing.
- 2008-06-27 A forensic opinion by Professor Kröber is drawn up
according to documents and without speaking to Mollath (contrary
to the minimum standards postulated by Kröber himself). This
is confirmed by the opinion of Dr. Leipziger and states that Mollath is dangerous
to public safety if left untreated.
- 2009-05-14 Dismissal from the District Hospital of Straubing.
- 2009-05-14 – ? Inpatient accommodation in the District Hospital
of Bayreuth until this day.
- 2011-02-12 A further opinion by Prof. Pfäfflin (Ulm) confirms
the opinion of Dr. Leipziger with the allegation of delusions
on Mollath's part, although here the details deny any type of
aggressiveness by him: Mollath is not "inwardly tense, aggressive,
or full of fury and hate".
He "takes part in the sports activities with great energy, and also
shows good team spirit". Doctors' visits were carried out "without
any problems" and in the meeting on relaxation of inmate restrictions,
it was noted that there is no "general danger to
public safety perceived and no danger of flight on his part."
is not the responsibility of forensic experts to verify whether Mollath is
interned via forensic commitment due to a plot, and whether the acts in the
court sentence were committed by him or not. Irrespective of this fact, the
forensic opinion should naturally point out such issues, in particular if
the psychiatric examination provides information which was not known at the
time of internment, and which cast doubts about the guilt of Mr. Mollath.
Such new documents or information was not provided by Mr. Mollath."
[quoted from the forensic opinion of Prof. Pfäfflin]
- 2011-03-28 Expert opinion by Dr. Schlötterer with the contents:
The illicit-funds transfer dealings are quite probable, so the
opinion of Prof. Pfäfflin is faulty, due to incorrect legal arguments, ditto
for the expertise leading to Mollath's commitment, drawn up by Dr. Leipziger.
- 2011-04-20 The District Hospital of Bayreuth provides the following
statement: Therapeutic rehabilitation of Mollath is not possible,
there is no change in his clinical picture.
- 2011-04-30 A forensic expert requested by Gustl Mollath and his
circle of supporters, Dr. Weinberger of Garmisch-Partenkirchen,
examines Mollath and reaches the opposite conclusions as the
other experts, but this is not acknowledged by the court [see
Statement of Dr. Weinberger].
- 2011-05-09 Hearing at the County Court of Bayreuth: Prof. Pfäfflin
maintains that "real events" only play a subordinate role in the
case of Gustl Mollaths.
- 2011-06-07 Mollaths defense, lawyer Ziegler, refers to Pfäfflin's
expertise as contradictory and criticizes that the other forensic
expert Dr. Weinberger was not summoned to the hearing.
- 2011-06-09 The County Court of Bayreuth orders the internment
of Gustl Mollath in the District Hospital of Bayreuth and rejects
the request for the overriding forensic opinion of a further
- 2011-08-26 The Higher Regional Court dismisses the appeal of
- 2011-10-07 An article in the Nürnberger Nachrichten
from this under Medienecho] quotes a friend of Mollath who was
a witness to the threats Mollath's wife made. She had said to
the friend: "If
Gustl presses charges against me and my bank, I will finish him
off. I have very good connections. I will press charges against
him too, you can tell him that. He's just nuts. I will have his
mental state checked, then I will pin something on him, I know
how that goes." Later,
this witness said, she also offered: "If Gustl shuts up, then he
can keep 500.000 euros of his assets. That is my last word." [quote
from NN newspaper].
- 2011-11-11 Further journalistic research in a second article
of the Nürnberger Nachrichten [Excerpts
from this under Medienecho],
reveals that the bank in question indirectly confirmed the accusations
of Gustl Mollath: It had been discovered that in the past, bank
employees had, "in
connection with Swiss bank transactions, among other things with
the AKB Bank (a subsidiary of the then Bayerischen Hypotheken-
und Wechselbank AG), acted contrary to bank instructions."
This means that there are more than sufficient grounds for revision
of the case. Nevertheless, the Public Prosecutor sees no need
to act and states that there is no "assessment approach which would
justify the initiating of preliminary proceedings". The information
supplied was "not
specific" [quote from NN newspaper].
- 2011-12-14 In a press
release, the Public Prosecutor dismisses
objections in the Mollath case, but does not refer to the allegations
that the claims made by Mollath with respect to tax evasion
and funds transfers to Switzerland. [see also radio
program of SWR and TV
program Report Mainz]. Furthermore, the file on the charges pressed by
Gustl Mollath for tax evasion and illegal funds transfers are
destroyed after five years, so that "information on these specific
proceedings can no longer be provided".
- 2011-12-16 The Public Prosecutor of Nurnberg
now does decide - eight years later - to investigate the claims
made by Mollath tax evasion and illegal funds transfers. This
is reported by the Nürnberger Nachrichten in their newspaper
echo]. In the same newspaper issue, there is a comment
worth reading by M. Kasperowitsch [see
- 2012-01-11 Lawyer Dr. Kleine-Cosack from Freiburg, files
with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. This document
describes the multitude of procedural errors made, inconsistencies
and erroneous expertises in the Mollath case.
- 2012-02-08 A
further Opinion in favor of Gustl Mollath is sent to Minister of Justice Dr. Beate Merk by Prof. Dr. Dieckhöfer.
- 2012-03-30 Gustl Mollath gives power of attorney to lawyer
Erika Lorenz-Löblein (Munich), initially to access records and provide
consultation. Later further powers are accorded.
- 2012-04-27 Ruling of the County Court of Bayreuth to appoint
lawyer Erika Lorenz-Löblein as the assigned counsel of Gustl
- 2012-06-10 Gustl Mollath gives power of attorney to lawyer
Lorenz-Löblein for the retrial (on September 12, 2012 Mollath gives a further
power of attorney to lawyer RA Dr. Strate).
- 2012-07-26 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein presses criminal charges
against Dr. Leipziger, District Hospital of Bayreuth, for deprivation
of personal freedom.
- 2012-08-15 Rejection
of charges on the part of public prosecutor in Bayreuth (with respect to deprivation of personal freedom)
- 2012-09-22 Substantiation of claim by lawyer Lorenz-Löblein
for the decision of Public Prosecutor in Bayreuth.
- 2012-10-04 Motion
defeated by Public Prosecutor of Bamberg on deprivation of personal freedom.
- 2012-11-19 Lawyer Lorenz Löblein requests the Public Prosecutor
of Nurnberg-Fürth and the County Court of Bayreuth to reassess
the erroneous internment of Gustl Mollath, under reference to
the audit report drawn up by the HypoVereinsbank.
- 2012-11-20 Receipt of letters from
lawyer Lorenz-Löblein (with the auditing report of the HypoVereinsbank)
by the public prosecutor of Nuremberg-Fürth, the County Court
of Bayreuth, the Higher Regional Court of Bamberg and the public
prosecutor of Bamberg. At about 3:00 PM, the public
prosecutor of Nuremberg sends the auditing report per fax to
the public prosecutor responsible for this case, as well as to
- 2012-11-26 Expert's opinion on the Charges
pressed by Gustl Mollath (2003) by lawyer Dr. Gerhard Strate as
PDF and in the form
of a detailed Video.
- 2012-11-21 Lawyer Schmid files Charges
against all those involved in this case on probable cause of deprivation of personal freedom,
erroneous suspicion, perversion of justice, and against Justice
Minister Merk for suspicion of false testimony.
- 2012-12-03 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein files criminal charges
with the Public Prosecutor of Bayreuth for suspicion of manipulation
of Mollath's patient file in the District Hospital of Bayreuth.
- 2012-12-09 Lawyer
Dr. Strate, Hamburg states that he is
willing to represent Mollath at no charge during the retrial and receives
power attorney from Mollath for this. Together with lawyer Lorenz-Löblein,
who has POA since June 10, 2012, he now represents Mollath also.
- 2012-12-29 Receipt of the auditing report by the public
prosecutor of Nuremberg.
- 2013-01-04 Lawyer Dr. Strate presses
criminal charges against Judge
E. and Dr. Leipziger, Distr. Hospital of Bayreuth, for
suspicion of severe deprivation of personal freedom.
- 2013-01-14 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein informs Dr. Leipziger
that before any decision on measures in Mollath's case is taken, there is
the right to due process of law.
- 2013-01-14 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein tells
the Public Prosecutors in Bayreuth that, because of the charges filed by her
colleague Mr. Schmid on November 21, 2012 she expects that necessary steps
be taken to initiate and plead the statute of limitations.
- 2013-01-15 Dr. Leipziger states that Gustl Mollath is,
without merit and under wrongful allegations, to be transferred to the
District Hospital of Ansbach. Mollath's supporters therefore
file a petition
with the Bavarian Parliament against his internment.
Lawyers at the court disagree and protest against the attempt
version of the petition]
- 2013-01-17 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein points out repeatedly to Dr. Leipziger
that before any decision is taken, Mollath has the right to be heard. For
this reason, the defense must be notified in advance.
- 2013-01-18 Against the wishes of the defense, the District Court
of Bayreuth extends the deadline for the response to the petition
of the State Prosecutor of December 29, 2012 by only one week. This deadline
refers for the procurement of a further external forensic opinion, as well
as for the selection of an official expert to be charged with the case, and
states that it is imperative to speed up proceedings in the case of imprisonment
On the part of the detained Mollath, the basis for internment
in general is questioned, for this reason the speeding up of
proceedings is particularly important, and the defense states that this issue
can be solved by the impending decision on the part of the legal chamber.
- 2013-01-21 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein informs the government of Upper
Franconia as well as the Bavarian State Chamber of Physicians
about the criminal proceedings on the part of the Public Prosecutors
of Bayreuth and Augsburg and requests verification of further measures to
be taken [see Reply
of the Govt. of Upper Franconia of January 24, 2013 –
No answer yet from the Bavarian State Chamber
- 2013-01-24 Answer from the government of Oberfranken to the Letter
of lawyer Lorenz-Löblein of January 21, 2013: The fact that criminal
charges are raised against a physician does not create the prerequisites
for changing anything in the license to practice medicine. "If
in this connection, new facts become apparent that affect the
license to practice medicine, we will clarify the issue in an official capacity."
- 2013-01-28 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the Public Prosecutor
of Augsburg to inform of all file numbers of proceedings in which
Mr. Mollath is listed as the injured party.
- 2013-01-29 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the District Court
of Bayreuth to confirm Mollath's illegal internment, conclusion
of internment and no supervision of conduct. The demand for a
further expert opinion, it states, contains the confession that
Gustl Mollath did not become dangerous to public safety until
he was interned. At the same time, a request is filed to continue
internment in the Bayreuth hospital on an "open door" basis.
Since a second opinion is not necessary or justified, an opinion on the person
of the proposed expert is not necessary, it further states.
- 2013-02-04 Ruling of the District Court of Bayreuth: Motion of
the Public Prosecutor to obtain an external opinion by an expert
The chamber intends to have the case resubmitted on July 30,
2013, including a current opinion by the hospital in.
- 2013-02-04 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the District
Court of Bayreuth to set a date for a hearing soon, dealing with the
necessary initial investigations and a court decision on the
petition made re incorrect internment, finishing of internment
and dismissal of custodians.
Already in the communication of November
19, 2012 a petition was made to confirm the incorrect internment
again. Failure to act, the communication stated, would be a breach of duty
as per § 67e sub-p. 1 German Penal Code, which describes the duty to investigate
into the circumstances of the further enforcement of this law.
If, using common
sense alone, the court does not see itself in a position to end
the illegal internment of Mollath since 2006, due to the current situation
, then the court must call an expert in, who can judge the incrimination
posed by the expert opinions until this date, and including the current findings.
asks why the expertise requested by the Public Prosecutor from
the hospital in Bayreuth could be restricted to a description of the course
of events, when his further internment as ruled by the court is the subject
The progress report made by the hospital in Bayreuth from December
18, 2012, she states, is a testimony to the desperate attempt
on the part of officials to convince Mollath that the official view of events
is correct. There is no discussion of any possible danger to others, but
just a description of the failure of Mollath to let the official
view of events be forced on him.
The events around the ruling of the District
Court of LG Bayreuth is sent to Justice Minister Dr. Merk and Bavarian state
president Horst Seehofer.
- 2013-02-05 The
Public Prosecutor of Bayreuth tells the lawyer Schmid that the preliminary proceedings are to be passed on to
the Public Prosecutor in Augsburg, due to the Charges
pressed against all involved in the case (November 21, 2012).
Persons from Mollath‘s private environment as well as person
from the Justice Dept. Public Prosecutor and experts are named
as the accused.
- 2013-02-11 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the Public Prosecutor
in Augsburg to again publish all files on cases in which Mollath
is named as the claimant. The Prosecution offers to Lorenz-Löblein
to come to Augsburg to review the files and requests an appointment for this
- 2013-02-19 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the County Court of
Bayreuth to answer the letters of November 19, 2012, January
29, 2013, February 4, 2013, and February 13, 2013.
- 2013-02-19 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the Public Prosecutor
of Bayreuth to answer the letters of January 28, 2013 and February
- 2013-02-20 Lawyer Dr. Strate files a motion to have
a retrial in the case of Gustl Mollath with the County Court of Regensburg
and provides a Press
release to this effect.
- 2013-02-20 The Justice authorities of Regensburg confirm receipt
of the retrial motion of Dr. Strate.
- 2013-02-21 The Public Prosecutor of Augsburg sends Ms. Lorenz-Löblein
a fax containing two of the requested file numbers.
- 2013-02-22 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein again sends an email to Public
Prosecutor Eisenbarth of the Augsburg court, requesting an appointment
to review the files.
Furthermore, Ms. Lorenz-Löblein states that she found out from
the press that Public Prosecutor Nerlich in Nurnberg would like
to investigate the claims made by Lawyer Strate in the retrial
request against Judge Otto Brixner. Since the Public Prosecution
in Bayreuth has been leading the investigation on Judge Brixner
for a considerable time, so by now some insights should have
Ms. Lorenz-Löblein requests that the insights gained by the prosecution
in Bayreuth, Regensburg and Augsburg be made available to all,
in order to avoid duplicate work. This letter is sent to Public
Prosecutor Nerlich as well as to Justice Minister Dr. Merk.
- 2013-02-25 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein receives some files from the
prosecution in Augsburg for inspection.
- 2013-02-27 The Public Prosecutor of Augsburg terminates the proceedings
against a district court judge in Nürnberg and against the head
of the District Hospital of Bayreuth for suspicion of wrongful
deprivation of liberty of Gustl Mollath [see Charges, the Press
release on the termination of proceedings and an appeal is lodged
by lawyer Dr. Strate]
- 2013-03-01 The Ministry of Justice confirms receipt
of the email
of lawyer Lorenz-Löblein of 2013-02-22 [!]
- 2013-03-11 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the city of Bayreuth
to include Gustl Mollath in the electoral register. According
to § 63 and § 20 of German Penal Code, whoever is in a psychiatric
hospital is legally excluded from voting. However, this contradicts
Article 38 of
the German Constitution, which guarantees the right
to vote to all persons over 18 years of age.
- 2013-03-18 The Public Prosecutor of Regensburg files a motion to retry
Mollath [Press release of County Court of Nürnberg]
- 2013-03-19 Gustl Mollath assents to the statement on the criminal
charges filed by lawyer Schmid against all those involved in
the case and files charges himself. In its rejection of the petition due
to bias, the County Court of Bayreuth pointed out that the person filing
the petition had no connection to Mr. Mollath, and no statement was given
by Mollath on the filing of these charges. For this reason, the judges could
continue to take unbiased decisions on this case. The prosecutor in Augsburg,
they say, should be the one to decide whether preliminary proceedings should
be initiated in this case (currently, the case is being filed under a JS
reference with the public prosecutor in Augsburg). Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein
had until that time refrained from filing criminal charges on the basis of
the principle of legality. If it serves to establish the truth, she states,
she would be willing to file criminal charges if agreed to by Mollath. She
requests elucidation on why the legally required audit report of the HypoVereinsbank
was not passed on to the Public Prosecutor, responsible for the enforcement,
until November 2012 (note: the statements by Minister Merk make it clear
that this audit report was available to the Nürnberg-Fürth prosecutors on
December 20, 2011).
- 2013-03-22 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein sends the request
for retrial on the part of the prosecutors in Regensburg to the hospital
in Bayreuth, to the County Court of Bayreuth and to the public
prosecutors in Nürnberg-Fürth. The findings of the prosecution in Regensburg
should be taken into consideration when the decision on settling the case
- 2013-03-23 Lawyer Dr. Strate publishes
the request for retrial on the part of Regensburg prosecutors in the Mollath case, together
with a press
- 2013-03-25 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein receives the request for retrial
of Regensburg prosecutors and the opinion on the retrial request
by Dr. Strate of the County Court of Regensburg. The attached
letter is dated of March 20, 2013.
- 2013-03-26 Lawyer Dr. Strate expands
the reasons for appeal against
the dismissal of his criminal complaint against Judge Eberl and
Dr. Leipziger, the head of the forensics department with the
public prosecutor in Augsburg.
- 2013-03-27 The public prosecutor in Nurnberg informs lawyer Lorenz-Löblein,
that the proceedings sent by the Public Prosecutor of Munich
were stored in the report reference file, since it is not relevant
to either the enforcement proceedings or to the retrial proceedings.
No right of access to the report reference file is provided.
Lorenz-Löblein is advised to contact the author of the file directly.
- 2013-03-28 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein receives the Statement
of the District Hospital of Bayreuth (date: March 04, 2013) on the further
internment of Mollath as specified by the County Court of Bayreuth,
for attention and information. It is confirmed by Dr. Leipziger
and Dr. Bahlig-Schmidt that from a forensic and psychiatric view,
the “purpose of the forensic commitment has not been
at all fulfilled and that therefore further material grounds
prevail for the committing of crimes, as in the initial offenses.” On
the phone, Dr. Leipziger states that he has received the request
for retrial of the prosecutor sent by lawyer Lorenz-Löblein, but that he
must proceed from his own opinion as included in the comments of the legally
binding sentence. In the retrial request of the prosecution the hearing of
Dr. Wörthmüller with conclusions of the prosecution was contained, but Leipziger
himself as the forensic expert was denied the assessment of evidence.
For this reason, he states that he must adhere to the findings of the legally
binding sentence. He therefore sees no reason to add to or change
his initial opinion after having read the request of the prosecution.
This is only possible, he states, when there are legal findings that Mollath
did not carry out the actions that he was accused of. According to the German
Medical Association’s professional code of conduct, forensic
expertises must be drawn up in to the best of its knowledge. [German
Medical Association’s professional code of conduct]
- 2013-04-02 The Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg-Fürth receives the
forensic opinion on the further internment of Mollath (date March
27, 2013). The prosecutor requests that the internment of Mollath
be continued, because since the opinion of Professor Pfäfflin
no change in Mollath’s condition could be observed and therefore
he remains dangerous to public safety. Also in the face of the
retrial request of the Regensburg prosecutor, the internment
remains commensurate, he states.
- 2013-04-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate becomes co-defense
attorney in the execution of the sentence of Gustl Mollath.
- 2013-04-12 Lawyer Dr. Strate publishes his submission
to the chamber responsible for execution of sentences in Bayreuth, the
of the hospital in Bayreuth on the hearing date of the
chamber responsible for execution, as well as a press
- 2013-04-19 Short report of the joint defense on the hearing date
of the chamber responsible for execution of sentences in Bayreuth:
The hospital in Bayreuth has predicted further danger to public
safety. This prediction is drawn up on the basis of the legally
binding court decision of 2006. The retrial requests are not
relevant for the opinion of the hospital in Bayreuth. Dr. Zappe
stated in front of the court that if the accusations are no longer
the basis for such predictions, then there is longer any reason
to justify the accusation of public danger, and nothing would
be left of the case.
On March 22, 2013 the retrial request of the Regensburg prosecutor
was sent to the County Court of Bayreuth and is therefore a part
of the records. Both the retrial request of Dr. Strate and the
opinion of the Regensburg prosecutor are until now (officially)
not known to the chamber responsible for the execution of sentences.
In the court hearing, Gustl Mollath requested to be immediately
released. On Monday the chamber will consult further on the legality
of Mollath’s internment.
- 2013-04-15 The County Court of Regensburg grants an extension
of the deadline applied for by the two defense lawyers, on the
opinion of the retrial request of the Regensburg prosecutor (two
- 2013-04-16 Further
statement of hospital in Bayreuth sent to the county court of Bayreuth.
- 2013-04-19 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein sends the statement
of the Regensburg prosecutor on the retrial request by lawyer Dr. Strate
to the county court of Bayreuth, to the chamber responsible for execution
- 2013-04-22 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein tells the county court of Bayreuth
All medical forensic experts proceed from the perpetration of
a crime on the part of Mr. Mollath. Prof.
Pfäfflin wrote in his expertise that Mollath did not present any new documents or information
which could prove his innocence. Now new facts and evidence exists
that gives rise to considerable doubts about the perpetration
of a crime on the part of Mollath. The credibility of the only
witness has been severely undermined. The acts describing a criminal
offense can therefore no longer be used as the basis for predicting
the dangerousness to public safety. This further means that the
expert forensic opinions with respect to this dangerousness have
all been vitiated. The head physician Dr. Zappe was not able
to name any further events which could serve as the basis for
the forecast of dangerousness.
Dr. Leipziger’s allegations
in the commitment expertise for Mr.
Mollath imply that he was suffering from delusions. The basis
of these perceptions of Mollath have in the meantime emerged
as true and real. The Public Prosecutor of Regensburg had determined
this, and it is also confirmed by the Special
audit carried out by the HypoVereinsbank. This means that the diagnosis of delusion
made by Dr. Leipziger has collapsed.
The credibility of the only witness has been seriously shattered.
The basis of forecasting Mollath’s dangerousness thus no longer
is applicable. Whereas the chamber responsible for the execution
of sentences must proceed from the sentence passed by final judgment,
a physician must – when drawing up forensic opinions – take into
consideration the professional code
of conduct for physicians and must draw up the opinion to the best of their knowledge and
belief. According to head physician Dr. Zappe, if the offenses
were not committed, then there is no forecast of dangerousness.
For this reason, the defense requests the court to declare the
case settled and to promptly revoke the decree that Mollath must
be placed under custody.
- 2013-04-29 Press
release of County Court of Bayreuth on the ruling of the chamber for the
execution of sentences of April 26, 2013.
- 2013-04-29 Joint Press
release by lawyers Lorenz-Löblein and Dr. Strate on the decision of the
chamber for execution of sentences in Bayreuth of April 16, 2013.
- 2013-05-01 Lawyer Dr. Strate publishes his brief to the county
court of Regensburg on the addendum of the retrial request of
- 2013-05-07 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Brief on the acceptance
of the retrial request of the prosecutor in Regensburg.
- 2013-05-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Brief
on the request to interrupt the further execution of the sentence sent to the county court
- 2013-05-27 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the editorial staff
of the Sunday „group of regulars“ from the Bayerische Rundschau
newspaper to publish a counter-statement because of the
statements made by the moderator Mr. Markwort. Mr. Markwort stated several
times that Mr. Mollath threatened others. This is incorrect,
Mr. Mollath did not threaten anybody, so that the statement of "many" or "x" in connection with the
imputed threats is also incorrect. Mr. Markwort also said that Mr. Mollath
wrote letters to a thousand people, which is also incorrect. Mr. Markwort
also stated that Mollath claimed, "I am only saying
that that man keeps on repeating: All those wanting to examine
me are Nazi criminals and fascists whom I do not permit to examine me."
This statement is also untrue, Mr. Mollath never said any such
thing. Mr. Mollath offers to come on the program, instead of
publishing a contrary statement. If this should not be possible
because Mr. Mollath is handcuffed or has an electronic leg tag,
he proposes that Mr. Rampl of the HypoVereinsbank (now at Unicredit)
come in his stead. Mr. Markwort and Mr. Rampl know each other
from their common activities in the board of directors of the
Bavaria Football club. Mr. Mollath proposes, as a further alternative
to have the former Bavarian prime minister Edmund Stoiber come
on the program, since he is also known to Mr. Markwort from the
common activities on the board of directors. Mr. Rampl and Mr.
Stoiber were recipients of letters written by Mollath. Mr. Rampl
could report, for example, how the HypoVereinsbank reacted then
to the letters of Mollath. Mr. Stoiber could presumably report
on the case extensively, since the Bavarian Ministry of Justice
had requested the files on this case already in 2004.
- 2013-05-28 The county court of Regensburg rejects the request
for interruption of the stay of execution of Mollath filed by
lawyer Dr. Strate.
- 2013-05-28 Press
release by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection
of the court in Regensburg to interrupt Mollath’s forced hospital
- 2013-05-28 Complaint
filed by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection
of the stay of execution by the county court of Regensburg.
- 2013-05-29 Addition
to the complaint filed by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection of the stay of execution by the county court
- 2013-05-31 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein tells the prosecution in Regensburg
that all letters written to the prosecution, as well as all documents
passed to them were destined for the records. She did not, she
states, give the court any files personally nor by postal mail.
- 2013-06-04 Together with lawyer Strate, lawyer Lorenz-Löblein
provides an additional statement on the incorrect protocol drawn
up during the hearing before the chamber for the execution of
sentences of the court in Bayreuth.
She further says that the statement made by head physician Dr.
Zappe went completely unmentioned. Dr. Zappe had stated that
the prediction was based on the continuation of the dangerousness
of Mollath as previously specified, because no change through
therapy happened. If the original acts were not carried out,
there is no reason to suppose Mollath is dangerous, and only
the diagnosis remains. There is no further reason to assume Mollath
is dangerous [delusions without dangerousness are not a reason
for forced internment].
In the additional statement, she sends the Press
report of German TV program Report Mainz of June 3, 2013 and informs the court
that the reality of the situation increasingly contradicts the
original delusion attributed to Mollath. The further internment
on the basis of an unchanged “original diagnosis” and the increasing
dangerousness without therapy are therefore no longer tenable.
- 2013-06-10 The chamber for the execution of sentences in Bayreuth
rejects the request to drop charges and release Mollath. The
continued internment of Mollath is ordered by the court until
the next examination scheduled on June 10, 2014 [Press
release of prosecution in Bayreuth].
- 2013-06-12 After conferring with Dr. Strate, Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein
files a complaint against the decision
of the chamber for execution of sentences in Bayreuth of June 10, 2013.
- 2013-06-20 Lawyer Dr. Strate:
sent to the court in Regensburg on the lack of probative value
of medical opinion of Dr. Reichel from June 3, 2002
Statement on the current
cases referring to Gustl Mollath
- 2013-06-21 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein asks the head of the legal enquire
commission Mr. Florian Herrmann how the public is informed about
the written statements provided by the retired judge R. Heinemann and the
employees of the HypoVereinsbank. Furthermore, she asks whether Mr. Herrmann
refuses to comply with Mr. Mollath’s suggestion to interrogate Martin Maske
on his knowledge of the actions taken (HypoVereinsbank, and Bethmann-Bank
Hypo Real Estate).
- 2013-06-24 The regional appellate court of Nurnberg rejects the
complaint of lawyer Strate on the failure to act on the part
of the county court of Regensburg.
[Press statement of court of Nurnberg]
- 2013-06-24 Statement of lawyer Dr. Strate on the decision of
the appellate court of Nurnberg of June 24, 2013
- 2013-07-01 Lawyer Kleine-Cosack submits an
to the previous constitutional complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe.
Lawyer Dr. Strate comments on a ruling made by the District Court of Hamburg on the application made by the Public
Prosecutor of Hamburg with respect to the deletion of the external documents
published by him.
[Ruling by the District Court]
- 2013-07-04 Lawyer Dr. Strate:
Constitutional complaint against the rulings of the County Court of Regensburg and the Appellate Court of Nuremberg with
respect to the infringement of the basic right of personal freedom
- 2013-07-08 Letter
of Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein to Justice Minister Dr. Merk on Merk's statements
in the program BR-kontrovers (Interview: Ursula Heller in the first minute) on the alleged public danger of Gustl Mollath
- 2013-07-09 Bavarian Minister of Justice and for Consumer Protection: Justice Ministry delivers an
opinion on the constitutional complaint lodged by Mollath
- 2013-07-09 Fact-finding committee meets on the subject of Mollath in the Bavarian Parliament:
Opposition parties present minority report
- 2013-07-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Statement on the status of proceedings in the case
of Gustl Mollath
- 2013-07-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate:
Substantiation of complaint against the decision of
the Chamber responsible for execution of sentences of June 10, 2013
Written letter of inquiry by lawyer Dr. Strate to the County Court of Regensburg
Lawyer Dr. Kleine-Cosack: Statement
on the constitutional complaint lodged by Gustl Mollath
[see Constitutional Complaint lodged by Kleine-Cosack re Mollath on January 11, 2012]
- 2013-07-17 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein presents further reasons for retrial to the County
Court of Regensburg: For example, the unsworn false statements of Petra Mollath, Dr. Leipziger and a police inspector. As far as
the retrial is concerned, she informs the Public Prosecutor that - with respect to the statement of Dr. Wörthmüller - in particular
no hearing of evidence had taken place until then on the "courtesy expertise" prepared on Mollath and on Wörthmüller's comments on
it. Additionally, the varying qualifications of the different doctors involved also need to be taken into consideration. On the
comment of the court, Lorenz-Löblein pleads in court that the rules of evidence used in the records must correspond with § 249 of
German Penal Code. This implies that a bogus and falsified document was used as evidence in the case.
- 2013-07-18 Lawyer Dr. Strate:
to the Appellate Court of Nuremberg with respect to the challenge on grounds of bias at the County Court of Regensburg.
(for further events see
[Translation (with many thanks): Gloria Lindberg]
Derzeit ist eine direkte Weiterleitung von Mails nicht möglich. Alle
Mails gehen an die Webseitenbetreuung und werden nach Durchsicht an die
entsprechenden Personen oder Gruppen weiter geleitet. Deswegen gibt es
auch nur noch eine Kontaktmail, unter der die Unterstützer, und Herr
Mollath angeschrieben werden kann.
Wir bitten für diese Maßnahme um Verständnis.
[Die Mails gehen an die Webseitenbetreuung und werden je nach Inhalt an die entsprechenden Personen weiter geleitet]