Chronology   [> zur deutschen Version]

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
the defense


  1. 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.
  2. 1991 he marries Petra Mollath.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 war.
  7. 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 file]
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. 2002-05 Mollath's wife moves out of the common domicile.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.)
  14. 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].
  15. 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."
  16. 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.

    This Audit 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:
    Letters of Gustl Mollath to the banks 2002
  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
    Documents on house search
  23. 2003-02-22 Gustl Mollath asks the court whether employees of the HypoVereinsbank or Credit Suisse had anything to do with the house raid.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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 it hurts".
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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 Neumann].
  31. 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.
  32. 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].
  33. 2003-09-23 (!) The Public Prosecutor of Nurnberg-Fürth arraigns Gustl Mollath.
  34. 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 from Judgment of August 8, 2008]
  35. 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 transactions.
  36. 2003-10-29 The County Court of Nürnberg-Fürth rejects the complaint of Gustl Mollath against the ruling of September 25, 2003 as inadmissible.
  37. 2003-12-03 As the assigned counsel for Gustl Mollath, the court appoints Thomas Dolmany.
  38. 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].
  39. 2004 Divorce of Gustl and Petra Mollath.
  40. 2004-01-26 The forensic expert Thomas Lippert writes to the court stating that Gustl Mollath did not appear for assessment, so that "an assessment can therefore only be made in the form of a police-led screening".
  41. 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 suspicion", the allegations are "not specific" and did not result in "any assessment approach that would justify initiating preliminary proceedings" [see 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 in Bavaria.]
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
    [Ruling on the creation of expert opinions]
    [Enforcement of the asylum commitment by the Nürnberg criminal police]
  44. 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]
  45. 2004-05-13 The public prosecutor sends legal file extracts to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice.
  46. 2004-05-26 The appeal made by Gustl Mollath against the court order of April 22, 2004, is rejected.
  47. 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.
  48. 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]
  49. 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 be issued.
  50. 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 No. 5]
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 2004-09-02 Dr. Zappe of the District Hospital of Bayreuth returns the initial file of Gustl Mollath.
  55. 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.
  56. 2004-10-08 Gustl Mollath's appeal to reverse this ruling and to have his own chosen lawyer is rejected by the court.
  57. 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].
  58. 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.
  59. 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].
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. 2005-03-21 Dismissal from the District Hospital of Bayreuth
  64. 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.
  65. 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."
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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]
  69. 2005-07-28 The forensic opinion of Dr. Leipziger is received by the Higher Regional Court in Nürnberg.
  70. 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.
  71. 2005-08-11 Preliminary dismissal of the case according to § 154 Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the case pending on physical assault.
  72. 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.
  73. 2005-10-04 Complaint lodged against the dismissal of the case by lawyer Dr. Woertge.
  74. 2005-10-06 Arraignment of Mollath for 9 cases of property damage and dismissal of further cases according to § 154 Code of Criminal Procedure.
  75. 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.
  76. 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."
  77. 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.

    Note: 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.
  78. 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 crate (...)"
  79. 2006-02-27 – 2006-03-02 Internment of Gustl Mollath in the District Hospital of Erlangen.
  80. 2006-03-02 – 2006-04-24 Internment in the District Hospital of Bayreuth.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. 2006-03-28 Lawyer Ophoff resigns as the lawyer of Gustl Mollath.
    [see: Motion for new hearing by lawyer Strate, page 7]
  84. 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.
  85. 2006-04-05 Dr. Zappe (Dist. Hospital Bayreuth) writes a forensic opinion to the detriment of Gustl Mollath
  86. 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.
  87. 2006-04-24 – 2009-05-14 Internment in District Hospital of Straubing.
  88. 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 three judges.
  89. 2006-08-08 Court case in front of the District Court of Nürnberg:

    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 intentions".
    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."

    From the 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.

    Both 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 11 above].

    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 police protocol]).
    [Ruling of August 8, 2006]
  90. 2006-08-11 One of Mollath's lawyers files a motion to appeal the sentence with the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe.
  91. 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 €.
  92. 2006-10-06 Mollath's lawyer substantiates the appeal in a letter to the court of Nürnberg-Fürth.
  93. 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".
  94. 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 psychiatric disorder".
  95. 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.
  96. 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.
  97. 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.
  98. 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:
    • psychomotor behavior: adequate affective response, permits critical questions
    • 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
    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].
  99. 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 by judges"]
  100. 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.
  101. 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.
  102. 2009-05-14 Dismissal from the District Hospital of Straubing.
  103. 2009-05-14 – ? Inpatient accommodation in the District Hospital of Bayreuth until this day.
  104. 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."
    "It 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]
  105. 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.
  106. 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.
  107. 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].
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. 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 psychiatrist.
  111. 2011-08-26 The Higher Regional Court dismisses the appeal of Gustl Mollath.
  112. 2011-10-07 An article in the Nürnberger Nachrichten (NN) [Excerpt 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].
  113. 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].
  114. 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".
  115. 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 [see media echo]. In the same newspaper issue, there is a comment worth reading by M. Kasperowitsch [see Media echo].
  116. 2012-01-11 Lawyer Dr. Kleine-Cosack from Freiburg, files a Complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. This document describes the multitude of procedural errors made, inconsistencies and erroneous expertises in the Mollath case.
  117. 2012-02-08 A further Opinion in favor of Gustl Mollath is sent to Minister of Justice Dr. Beate Merk by Prof. Dr. Dieckhöfer.
  118. 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.
  119. 2012-04-27 Ruling of the County Court of Bayreuth to appoint lawyer Erika Lorenz-Löblein as the assigned counsel of Gustl Mollath.
  120. 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).
  121. 2012-07-26 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein presses criminal charges against Dr. Leipziger, District Hospital of Bayreuth, for deprivation of personal freedom.
  122. 2012-08-15 Rejection of charges on the part of public prosecutor in Bayreuth (with respect to deprivation of personal freedom)
  123. 2012-09-22 Substantiation of claim by lawyer Lorenz-Löblein for the decision of Public Prosecutor in Bayreuth.
  124. 2012-10-04 Motion defeated by Public Prosecutor of Bamberg on deprivation of personal freedom.
  125. 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.
  126. 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 other persons.
  127. 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.
  128. 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.
  129. 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.
  130. 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.
  131. 2012-12-29 Receipt of the auditing report by the public prosecutor of Nuremberg.
  132. 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.
  133. 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.
  134. 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.
  135. 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 at manipulation.
    [Short version of the petition]
  136. 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.
  137. 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 orders.
    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.
  138. 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 of Physicians.]
  139. 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."
  140. 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.
  141. 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.
  142. 2013-02-04 Ruling of the District Court of Bayreuth: Motion of the Public Prosecutor to obtain an external opinion by an expert is rejected.
    The chamber intends to have the case resubmitted on July 30, 2013, including a current opinion by the hospital in.
  143. 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.

    Lorenz-Löblein 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 at hand.

    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.
  144. 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.
  145. 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 by phone.
  146. 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.
  147. 2013-02-19 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the Public Prosecutor of Bayreuth to answer the letters of January 28, 2013 and February 11, 2013.
  148. 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.
  149. 2013-02-20 The Justice authorities of Regensburg confirm receipt of the retrial motion of Dr. Strate.
  150. 2013-02-21 The Public Prosecutor of Augsburg sends Ms. Lorenz-Löblein a fax containing two of the requested file numbers.
  151. 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 been forthcoming.
    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.
  152. 2013-02-25 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein receives some files from the prosecution in Augsburg for inspection.
  153. 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]
  154. 2013-03-01 The Ministry of Justice confirms receipt of the email of lawyer Lorenz-Löblein of 2013-02-22 [!]
  155. 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.
  156. 2013-03-18 The Public Prosecutor of Regensburg files a motion to retry Mollath [Press release of County Court of Nürnberg]
  157. 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).
  158. 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 is taken.
  159. 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 release.
  160. 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.
  161. 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.
  162. 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.
  163. 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]
  164. 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.
  165. 2013-04-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate becomes co-defense attorney in the execution of the sentence of Gustl Mollath.
  166. 2013-04-12 Lawyer Dr. Strate publishes his submission to the chamber responsible for execution of sentences in Bayreuth, the opinion of the hospital in Bayreuth on the hearing date of the chamber responsible for execution, as well as a press release.
  167. 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.
  168. 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 weeks).
  169. 2013-04-16 Further statement of hospital in Bayreuth sent to the county court of Bayreuth.
  170. 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 of sentences.
  171. 2013-04-22 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein tells the county court of Bayreuth the following:
    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.
  172. 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.
  173. 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.
  174. 2013-05-01 Lawyer Dr. Strate publishes his brief to the county court of Regensburg on the addendum of the retrial request of the defense
  175. 2013-05-07 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Brief on the acceptance of the retrial request of the prosecutor in Regensburg.
  176. 2013-05-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Brief on the request to interrupt the further execution of the sentence sent to the county court of Regensburg.
  177. 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.
  178. 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.
  179. 2013-05-28 Press release by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection of the court in Regensburg to interrupt Mollath’s forced hospital internment.
  180. 2013-05-28 Complaint filed by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection of the stay of execution by the county court of Regensburg.
  181. 2013-05-29 Addition to the complaint filed by lawyer Dr. Strate on the rejection of the stay of execution by the county court of Regensburg.
  182. 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.
  183. 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.
  184. 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].
  185. 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.
  186. 2013-06-20 Lawyer Dr. Strate:
    Pleading 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
  187. 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).
  188. 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]
  189. 2013-06-24 Statement of lawyer Dr. Strate on the decision of the appellate court of Nurnberg of June 24, 2013
  190. 2013-07-01 Lawyer Kleine-Cosack submits an addendum to the previous constitutional complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe.
  191. 2013-07-02 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]
  192. 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
  193. 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
  194. 2013-07-09 Bavarian Minister of Justice and for Consumer Protection: Justice Ministry delivers an opinion on the constitutional complaint lodged by Mollath
  195. 2013-07-09 Fact-finding committee meets on the subject of Mollath in the Bavarian Parliament: Opposition parties present minority report
  196. 2013-07-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Statement on the status of proceedings in the case of Gustl Mollath
  197. 2013-07-09 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Substantiation of complaint against the decision of the Chamber responsible for execution of sentences of June 10, 2013
  198. 2013-07-12 Written letter of inquiry by lawyer Dr. Strate to the County Court of Regensburg
  199. 2013-07-16 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]
  200. 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.
  201. 2013-07-18 Lawyer Dr. Strate: Brief 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 current events)


[Translation (with many thanks): Gloria Lindberg]



Kontakt: Faksimile-Belege (PDF): Sonstiges (PDF): Aktuell: