This documentation is published in several languages
Deutsch English Français Italiano Hrvatski Español

English translation of the German original. Swiss legal terms are translated for accessibility; where no exact English equivalent exists, the meaning under Swiss law governs. In the event of any discrepancy, the German version and the underlying original documents prevail.

This documentation is updated on an ongoing basis. Content, sources, official responses and documents are expanded progressively and corrected when new evidence emerges. The document archive and additional language versions will continue to grow.

Documentation · Switzerland / Germany

IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE?

Let the records speak.

This website documents a long-running criminal, migration and border-related case. Its focus is on original records, timelines, verifiable inconsistencies and specific questions addressed to the competent authorities.

The case in 5 minutesRead the story Overview Security & public order? Criminal record Timeline Border incident 8 Dec 2022 Documents Ongoing review Media & legal professionals Revision & consequences Support

Status: 22 September 2026 · The review is ongoing.

Historical reporting · 22 November 2013

A headline whose effects continue to this day

“Parasite stays away from court”

Historical media headline – not the assessment of this website.

The article opened, among other things, with the statement: “For years, a vexatious complainant has been keeping the Obwalden justice system busy.” This public characterisation is not answered here with a counter-insult, but with official records.

Available are criminal record extracts issued by the Federal Office of Justice on 4 March 2004, 11 February 2009 and 20 May 2011. On all three dates, the official statement reads: “is not recorded in the criminal record”.

The full newspaper article is not currently being published. Short quotations are placed in documentary context; the official record extracts will be redacted in accordance with data-protection requirements before publication.

Compare the newspaper portrayal with the official records ↓

What is this about?

The events documented here range from investigations and deprivation of liberty beginning in 2010, through a judgment of 20 November 2013, to a border incident at the German-Swiss crossing of Konstanz/Emmishofen on 8 December 2022 and the subsequent enforcement of the custodial sentence.

This website does not claim to provide final answers to all legal questions at this stage. Its purpose is to make clear which facts are documented, where inconsistencies exist, which official assessments require a concrete explanation, and which records are still missing.

Transparency principle: My first-person account is clearly distinguished from facts documented by authorities, legal assessments and evidentiary questions that remain open. No finding of criminal guilt is prejudged.

Research entry point

The case in 5 minutes

A criminal case. An entry ban. A judgment in absentia. An arrest by Swiss border officers on German sovereign territory. Imprisonment. And questions that should still be answerable from the original records.

This website does not ask readers simply to believe one account. It documents what the available records show, what is disputed, and which files are still missing for an independent review.

01

Where did the suspicion begin?

In 2009 I was first questioned by police in Sarnen in connection with the leased vehicle. On 7 May 2010 I was arrested in Bern. I was then questioned again in 2010 about the vehicle and its whereabouts. In the subsequent criminal proceedings I was accused of having committed fraud and misappropriation to the detriment of GMAC Suisse SA in 2009 and/or 2010. The defence records available also state that the lease instalments continued to be paid until my arrest.

Review question: When exactly is which criminal act alleged to have occurred? What concrete, contemporaneous fact gave rise to suspicion of fraud or misappropriation, and what act was attributed to what point in time? The key records sought include the earliest contemporaneous file entry, police reports, complaints, file notes and interview records.

02

2010: detention, removal and entry ban

On 7 May 2010 I was arrested in Bern. Approximately three months of pre-trial detention were followed by approximately three months of detention pending removal. On 19 November 2010 an entry ban was imposed, initially for an indefinite period; on 23 November 2010 I was removed from Switzerland. The later criminal conviction for fraud and misappropriation did not occur until 2013.

Review question: What facts and what risk assessment justified the migration measures already in 2010? Criminal-record extracts from 2004, 2009 and 2011 record that I was not listed in the criminal register on those respective dates. They do not prove that no offence had been committed.

03

2012: GMAC confirms full repayment and release – judgment follows in 2013

On 16 July 2012 GMAC Suisse SA confirmed full repayment of the lease and authorised deletion of code 178, “change of registered keeper prohibited”. On 20 November 2013 the main hearing took place before the Cantonal Court of Obwalden. I was not personally present; my court-appointed defence counsel sought acquittals. The repayment confirmation does not by itself prove that no earlier offence could have occurred.

Review question: Was the GMAC confirmation of 16 July 2012 before the court, and if so, how was it assessed in the GMAC part of the case? What specific act in 2009 or 2010 was nevertheless treated as fraud or misappropriation despite the continued payments and the later confirmation of full repayment?

04

8 December 2022: border control and arrest

In mid-November 2022, while the entry ban remained in force until 22 November, I went to the official Konstanz/Emmishofen border crossing to clarify whether and from what date I could lawfully enter Switzerland again. My identity details were checked; I was not arrested. After the entry ban ended on 22 November 2022, I returned to the same crossing on 8 December. At the decisive intervention I was on German sovereign territory. After approximately 20 to 30 minutes of telephone and electronic checks, Swiss border officers gave me a binding instruction to enter a room on the Swiss side. Without that instruction I would not have crossed the border. In that room I was informed that I was under arrest.

Review question: What arrest, transfer or sentence-enforcement authority existed at what precise time? What happened during those 20 to 30 minutes, and on what legal basis did Swiss border officers exercise sovereign authority on German territory?

05

Who reviewed the deprivation of liberty?

After the arrest, enforcement of the 2013 judgment began. During imprisonment I repeatedly challenged the basis of the sentence enforcement and referred, among other things, to the GMAC matter.

Review question: Were these objections documented and referred to a competent independent body for legal review, and where is the resulting decision? This does not claim that a prison itself had power to overturn a final judgment.

06

2023 and 2024: further authorities become involved

In 2023 the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland forwarded submissions to Obwalden. In April 2024 the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden took over proceedings previously conducted in Zurich, in which four persons were listed as accused in relation to allegations of abuse of office and unlawful deprivation of liberty. This does not establish guilt.

Review question: What investigative steps were actually taken and how were recusal and independence issues handled? The Federal Criminal Court later held that possible bias was to be addressed through the statutory recusal rules rather than by changing venue.

The decisive question is not: Whom do you believe?It is: What do the records show?

The case at a glance

Six lines of inquiry – one common question: where are the sound foundations?

The documentation is deliberately organised into separate lines of inquiry. This makes it clear which question relates to which point in time and which authority.

01

Origin of the criminal allegations

What specific fact gave rise in 2009/2010 to any suspicion of fraud or misappropriation in the first place – particularly in the GMAC matter?

02

2010 entry ban

Why was the case considered so serious that an entry ban of indefinite duration was initially imposed? What risk assessment existed at the time?

03

2013 judgment

What exculpatory material existed, why was the trial hearing held in absentia, and what grounds for revision may emerge from the complete case file?

04

Arrest & sentence enforcement 2022–2024

What specific legal instrument was operative on 8 December 2022 – and which independent body conducted a substantive review of the lawfulness of the sentence enforcement?

05

Workplace accident 2023

What health consequences arose during detention, how was the accident handled, and what additional question of causation would arise if the revision proceedings were successful?

06

Removal & entry ban 2024

What current risk assessment supported the second removal and the new entry ban – and what part of that basis would remain if the revision proceedings were successful?

The story · Working version 30 August 2026

When the state deprives a person of liberty, it must be able to explain why.

And when the lawfulness of that deprivation is challenged, there must be an effective and independent review somewhere in the system.

On 8 December 2022, a deprivation of liberty began which subsequently led to the enforcement of the Obwalden judgment of 20 November 2013. This documentation does not begin by asking whom one should believe. It asks a different question: What do the contemporaneous records show?

01

Where is the initial suspicion?

In 2009 I was first questioned by police in Sarnen in connection with the leased vehicle. On 7 May 2010 I was arrested in Bern. I was then questioned again in 2010 about the vehicle and its whereabouts.

In the subsequent criminal proceedings I was accused of having committed fraud and misappropriation to the detriment of GMAC Suisse SA in 2009 and/or 2010. The defence records available also state that the lease instalments continued to be paid until my arrest; in 2012 GMAC later confirmed full repayment of the lease.

I dispute these allegations in full. More than that: I dispute that the alleged offence against GMAC occurred at all.

My present review therefore does not begin with the question why I was allegedly guilty. It begins one step earlier:

The first and fundamental question What specific act is alleged to have occurred when, and what concrete contemporaneous fact caused the authorities to assume that fraud or misappropriation had occurred in connection with this leased vehicle?

Not: what was alleged later? Not: what does the 2013 judgment say? But: What did the investigators know, and at what point in time?

What specific act on my part is said to have satisfied the offence? Did the prosecution consider it to have occurred before my arrest on 7 May 2010 or afterwards? Who was allegedly deceived? What was the deception? What disposition of property and what loss are said to have resulted? Or, in relation to the alleged misappropriation, what specific act is said to have amounted to unlawful appropriation or disposal of the leased vehicle? And what contemporaneous evidence existed for it?

Under the Obwalden criminal procedure law then in force, the police were required to report to the investigating authority once there were indications of an offence, and an investigation was to be opened where suspicion of a criminal act was substantiated. The fact that fraud or misappropriation can generally be prosecuted ex officio therefore does not answer the decisive question: What concrete factual basis caused this investigative strand to be opened in the first place?

Public question to the then public prosecutor Bernhard Schöni What concrete fact in 2009/2010 gave rise to suspicion that I had committed any criminal offence against GMAC Suisse SA?

I ask the then public prosecutor Bernhard Schöni to identify the first contemporaneous file entry showing what concrete fact in 2009/2010 gave rise to suspicion of fraud or misappropriation against GMAC Suisse SA. If there was a substantiated suspicion, the contemporaneous files should show what it was based on.

The original starting point is what is sought: a report, a police record, a statement, a concrete observation or another contemporaneous document. Something must have stood at the beginning.

On what documented factual and evidentiary basis did the leasing relationship develop into criminal proceedings for fraud and misappropriation?

GMAC Suisse SA's later confirmation of 16 July 2012 that the lease had been fully repaid and that code 178 “change of registered keeper prohibited” could be deleted does not by itself prove that no earlier offence could have occurred. It does, however, reinforce the need for a precise reconstruction: What specific act, at what time and on the basis of what contemporaneous evidence was treated as fraud or misappropriation?

02

Mid-November 2022: I go to the border post myself

In mid-November 2022, I personally went to the Swiss border post at Konstanz/Emmishofen. The reason was straightforward: I wanted to know whether the entry ban against me had already expired, or when it would end.

My identity details were checked. I was not arrested. I left the border area again.

The entry ban was limited until 22 November 2022 and expired on that date.

03

8 December 2022: What happened during those 20 to 30 minutes?

A little over two weeks later, I returned to the same border crossing. Once again, I went to the official border post in order to clarify my legal position regarding entry. I was not there to cross the Swiss border secretly or on my own initiative.

My identity was checked again. For approximately 20 to 30 minutes, telephone enquiries and system-based checks concerning me were carried out.

At the decisive conversation and the first binding intervention I was on German sovereign territory. Swiss border officers then gave me a binding instruction to enter a room on the Swiss side. Without that instruction I would not have crossed the border or entered that room. In that room I was informed that I was under arrest.

The central evidentiary question Before these checks began, was there already a clear, active and immediately enforceable basis for arrest – or was something identified, confirmed, activated, transmitted or newly ordered during those 20 to 30 minutes?

The comparison with the check in mid-November makes this question particularly important: at that time, my identity details were checked at the same border crossing without any arrest. What data, instructions or system status had changed by 8 December must be clarified using the original historical data.

04

Frauenfeld. Obwalden. Sarnen. Stans.

After the arrest, I was first taken to Frauenfeld for one night. On the morning of 9 December, I was transferred to Obwalden. I then remained in police custody in Sarnen until 12 December, after which I was transferred to the remand and penal prison in Stans.

For each of these transfers, contemporaneous admission, transport, detention, communication and enforcement records should have existed, or their absence should be capable of explanation.

What specific detention, transfer or sentence-enforcement instrument was actually operative on 8 December 2022?

05

I objected while the sentence was being enforced

During my deprivation of liberty, I repeatedly challenged the lawfulness of the enforcement and referred to documents which, in my view, required review – including the GMAC matter.

During my detention, I also tried to obtain legal representation. I contacted approximately 32 lawyers. Around half told me that they had no capacity. Three explained that their practice concerned accident and social-insurance law; I received no response from the remainder. Despite these numerous enquiries, I was unable to find a lawyer willing to take on the mandate for the review I was seeking.

The decisive question is not whether a prison administration could have set aside a final judgment on its own authority. The decisive question is: Were my objections documented and forwarded to a body capable of genuinely reviewing their legal significance?

Review question Which independent judicial authority carried out a substantive review of the lawfulness of the specific sentence enforcement – and where is the corresponding decision?

06

2023: The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland repeatedly involves Obwalden

The available records of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland document a request to take over the proceedings dated 9 February 2023, a reminder dated 20 April 2023 and a renewed request dated 10 May 2023. Further submissions were forwarded to Obwalden in March and May.

It remains to be fully reconstructed how Obwalden responded to each individual communication. What is clear, however, is that the matter was repeatedly forwarded to, or followed up with, Obwalden.

Knowledge can be documented. The decisive issue is what review followed from it.

07

2024: Specific criminal proceedings against Obwalden public officials

In March 2024, I contacted the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of Zurich and made criminal allegations against several named Obwalden public officials. I requested an investigation outside Obwalden.

On 19 April 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden took over the proceedings that had previously been handled in Zurich. The takeover order identifies four specific accused persons and records the allegations I had raised of abuse of public office and unlawful deprivation of liberty.

This does not prove the guilt of the accused persons. It does show, however, that specific criminal proceedings concerning identified individuals existed and that Obwalden assumed jurisdiction over them.

08

The question of independence was foreseeable

In my submission of 24 March 2024, I had already referred to an earlier Obwalden case in which an external prosecutor had been appointed because of the small size of the canton and possible personal connections. In that context, I quoted the externally appointed prosecutor Reto Marbacher.

In my case, I likewise requested an external investigation. The Federal Criminal Court later declined to transfer venue and indicated that possible concerns about bias were to be addressed through recusal proceedings concerning specific individuals.

The consequence of that If venue remained in Obwalden, what specific organisational or personnel safeguard took the place of an external investigation?

09

Obwalden took over the proceedings. What happened next?

The takeover of the proceedings is documented. The accused persons are identified. The alleged offences are identified. The dispute over venue is documented. The Federal Criminal Court held that the concerns about bias raised by me were not to be resolved by transferring venue.

Responsibility for the criminal proceedings therefore remained in Obwalden.

An authority that claims jurisdiction assumes responsibility for the proceedings.

The complete file must therefore now show: which accused persons were questioned? Which witnesses? Which records were obtained? What investigative instructions were issued? What evidence was gathered? What recusal or independence review was conducted? And what formal decision, if any, brought the proceedings to an end?

If a serious investigation was carried out, that will be published. If the proceedings were taken over but not effectively pursued, that too will be published.

10

Two avenues of review – while the detention continued

Two strands therefore intersect: on the one hand, my objections to the lawfulness of the sentence enforcement; on the other, criminal proceedings against public officials which Obwalden itself took over.

The central historical question is therefore no longer merely which authority was responsible for which part of the matter.

The central question is: who, during that period, was reviewing the lawfulness of the exercise of state power?

11

The workplace accident – another documented point of scrutiny

On 12 October 2023, a workplace accident occurred while I was serving the sentence at Wauwilermoos Prison. The institution later confirmed itself that the accident report to AXA had been “mistakenly omitted” and was only submitted subsequently.

In August 2024, Obwalden was informed in writing that significant injuries to both shoulders had been identified. At the same time, follow-up MRI examinations of the shoulder and spine were recommended and assessed by the medical staff at Zug Prison as medically indicated and necessary. Thus, in addition to the shoulder injuries, the spine was expressly part of the documented need for medical investigation. The consequences of the delayed accident report and the subsequent treatment require independent medical clarification.

12

30 October 2024: second removal and new entry ban

After the end of the sentence enforcement, I was removed from Switzerland again; at the same time, a new entry ban was imposed.

This gave rise to a new question that must be answered independently: What current threat to public security and public order was considered to exist in 2024? The decisive issue is not merely what was said about me in 2010 or 2013, but what specific individual risk assessment existed at the time of the new measure.

Review question for 2024 What facts supported the second removal and the new entry ban – and did the measure apply only in Switzerland or, via SIS, throughout the Schengen area?

This question would acquire additional significance if the 2013 judgment were set aside in revision proceedings. It would then be necessary to examine which parts of the migration-law reasoning were based on that judgment, the sentence that was enforced, or risk assumptions derived from it.

13

This story does not ask for belief

I ask no one to accept my account without scrutiny.

I ask for something simpler:

Open the files.

Show the original basis for suspicion in the GMAC matter. Show the complete 2010 exclusion measure and the risk assessment made at the time. Show the historical SIS/Schengen effect. Show the contemporaneous legal basis for sentence enforcement in 2022. Show the communications at the border crossing. Show where my objections during detention were forwarded. Show the judicial review decision. Show the investigative steps taken in the criminal proceedings that were taken over. Show the recusal review. Show how the workplace accident was handled. Show the basis for the removal and the new entry ban of 2024.

And if those documents contradict the picture I present today, that too belongs in this documentation.

The question that goes beyond this individual case What happens in a state governed by the rule of law when a person not only criticises state power but specifically challenges its lawfulness?

The authorities had several opportunities to take a closer look. The records should now show who actually did so.

The time for assertions is over. Now let the records speak.

Documentation principle: Statements concerning authorities and accused persons are linked on this website to the underlying original records. Open evidentiary questions remain clearly identified as such. Factual responses and exculpatory material will likewise be published and placed in context.

Public questions for scrutiny

The central questions

1. Where is the initial suspicion?

What specific fact and what contemporaneous entry in the file first established suspicion of fraud or misappropriation in the GMAC matter in 2009/2010?

2. What made 2010 a “serious case”?

What specific risk assessment justified an entry ban that was initially imposed for an indefinite period?

3. What threat to security and public order?

What act, what date, what evidence and what forward-looking assessment supported the authorities’ risk evaluation?

4. Switzerland or Schengen?

Was the alleged threat confined to Switzerland, or did it extend throughout the Schengen area? What SIS/SIRENE alerts and what communications to other states existed in 2010 and 2024?

5. What do the criminal records show?

How does the public portrayal compare with the official extracts from 2004, 2009 and 2011, each of which states that I was not recorded in the criminal record?

6. Why was the trial hearing held without me?

How were my willingness to attend, the prohibition on travelling by land, my request for travel expenses, the absence of a response, and the court-appointed defence counsel imposed against my wishes dealt with?

7. What was the basis for the 2022 arrest?

What happened during the 20–30 minutes of enquiries at the border crossing, and what legal instrument was actually operative?

8. Who conducted a substantive review of the detention?

Which independent judicial authority examined the substance of my objections to the ongoing sentence enforcement – and where is the decision?

9. What happened after the proceedings were taken over in 2024?

What investigations, interviews, collection of records and recusal reviews took place after Obwalden took over the criminal proceedings?

Newspaper portrayal versus official records

“For years, a vexatious complainant has been keeping the Obwalden justice system busy.”

The sentence comes from the historical reporting of 22 November 2013. It is contrasted here not with counter-judgments, but with official criminal record extracts.

04.03.2004

Federal Office of Justice

“is not recorded in the criminal record”

11.02.2009

Federal Office of Justice

“is not recorded in the criminal record”

20.05.2011

Federal Office of Justice

“is not recorded in the criminal record”

A question for readersDoes the public labelling fit the picture documented by the official records on those dates?

Important: The extracts do not prove, in the abstract, that no criminal offence could ever have been committed. They establish the specific official criminal-record status on the three dates stated. That precision is itself part of this documentation.

The original extracts are available. Before public release, former residential addresses, identification numbers and signatures will be redacted.

Public security and public order

What specific threat was I alleged to pose?

Migration-law measures were imposed on me in 2010 and again in 2024. Insofar as those measures were justified on grounds of public security and public order, I request the specific factual basis – separately for each point in time, authority and territorial scope.

The ordinance applicable at the time did not define a threat to public security and public order as a mere label: there had to be specific indications that the person’s stay would, with a significant degree of probability, lead to a violation of public security and public order.

Historical version of the VZAE · Art. 80(2)
2010

Why an entry ban of indefinite duration?

Under the exclusion measure served on me, the entry ban was initially imposed for an indefinite period. According to the documents currently available to me, the order referred, among other things, to allegations of fraud and misappropriation as grounds for my removal. The later conviction on those allegations did not occur until 2013.

What made my case on 19 November 2010 such a “serious case”? What specific act, what assessment and what evidence already available at the time supported that classification? For precisely that reason, the original order should be published in full and compared with the status of the criminal proceedings at that time.

2010 → later

How did “indefinite” become time-limited?

The ban was later limited until 22 November 2022. It remains to be clarified when and by whom that change was made, how it was reasoned, whether it was served on me, and what notice of legal remedies accompanied it.

How could a decision be challenged if its amendment or extension was not duly notified?

2024

What current threat existed after completion of the custodial sentence?

After completion of the sentence enforcement, a further removal and a new entry ban took place on 30 October 2024. It must therefore be answered separately from the 2010 measure what current individual risk assessment was made in 2024 and on what facts it was based.

Today

Lawful residence in the Schengen area

Before my arrest on 8 December 2022, I was officially registered as resident in Konstanz. Today I have lawful residence in my home country, which is also part of the Schengen area.

If I am alleged to pose a specific threat, what exactly is it – and what territorial scope is it said to have?

Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Schengen: what was communicated to whom?

  1. Did the 2010 entry ban apply only to Switzerland, or did it also have Schengen-wide effect? What SIS alert actually existed?
  2. Did the alleged threat also apply to the Principality of Liechtenstein and the other Schengen states – or only to Swiss territory?
  3. What information was transmitted in 2010 and 2024 to other Schengen states via SIS/SIRENE or other official channels?
  4. Was a specific risk assessment, report or other factual basis transmitted to the respective receiving state?
  5. If no Schengen-wide alert was issued: why was the alleged threat assessed as specific to Switzerland?
  6. If a Schengen-wide alert was issued: what facts justified that scope, and how was it subsequently reviewed, amended or deleted?

Was I “dangerous” every day?

At one point, I was on my way to an appointment with SUVA in Bern using two walking aids. The walking aids do not, by themselves, disprove a legal risk assessment. They do, however, make the central question tangible:

What specific kind of threat did the authority mean in my case?

Did it exist before detention? During detention? After detention? Was it said to concern violence, property offences, non-compliance with official orders, or something else? The authority should identify the threat – not merely repeat the label.

A further review questionWas my persistent challenge to official decisions ever itself treated as an adverse factor in the risk assessment – and if so, was that based on violations of law or on my exercise of procedural rights?

In legal terms, there is not one “federal Switzerland” and a separate “Schengen Switzerland”. Precisely for that reason, the records must show whether a measure operated nationally or throughout Schengen, and what facts justified the respective scope.

Provisional timeline

This timeline is continuously checked against original records. Events personally experienced are clearly described in the first-person account; disputed official and legal questions are tested against files, register data and contemporaneous evidence.

from 2004

Residence in Switzerland

The migration-law status and later departures from Switzerland are being reconstructed using the complete cantonal and federal migration files.

Oct. 2007

Start of the lease

Beginning of the leasing agreement for the Mercedes-Benz that later became relevant to the criminal proceedings.

2009

Police questioning concerning the vehicle

In Sarnen, I was questioned about the leased vehicle although the leasing agreement was being serviced at that time. The reason, mandate and investigative basis at the time are to be clarified from the original records.

07.05.2010

Arrest in Bern

Beginning of pre-trial detention followed by detention pending removal. In particular, it must be clarified what specific grounds for suspicion and what evidence already existed on the day of the arrest.

2010

Questioning by police from the Canton of Bern

During detention pending removal, I was questioned by two officers from the Erlach Regional Police/Cantonal Police of Bern about the whereabouts of the leased vehicle. The corresponding police report or record is being specifically sought.

19–23 Nov 2010

Entry ban and removal

On 19 November 2010, an exclusion measure was ordered; on 23 November 2010, after three months of pre-trial detention and a further three months of detention pending removal, I was removed from Switzerland. The entry ban was initially imposed for an indefinite period. The classification at the time as a serious case, the specific risk assessment, the Schengen/SIS effect and the later time limitation all require clarification.

20.05.2011

Official criminal record extract

The Federal Office of Justice states: “is not recorded in the criminal record”. Extracts containing the same wording are also available from 4 March 2004 and 11 February 2009.

16.07.2012

Completion of the leasing agreement

An available confirmation from the leasing company documents full repayment of the agreement and authorisation to delete code 178, “Change of registered keeper prohibited”.

2013

Preparation for the trial hearing

I informed the Cantonal Court that I wished to attend the trial hearing. The entry ban then in force was suspended for two days; however, entry was permitted only by air, and I was prohibited from travelling to Switzerland by land. Because I lacked the necessary means, I requested payment of my travel expenses. I received no reply to that letter. The court file should show whether the request was nevertheless decided internally and how any such decision was intended to be served.

20.11.2013

Trial hearing and judgment in absentia

The trial hearing was conducted without my personal attendance. I had terminated the mandate of the lawyer concerned approximately two years earlier; he was later appointed as court-appointed defence counsel against my wishes. At the hearing, he sought my acquittal and compensation. Service, notice of legal remedies and any information concerning a new assessment under Art. 368 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure are being reconstructed from the records.

2013–2022

Open questions concerning sentence enforcement

It must be clarified what orders to report for sentence, wanted-person alerts, enforcement orders, or international mutual-assistance or extradition steps were actually initiated during this period.

Mid-Nov. 2022

Visit to clarify the entry ban

I went to the Swiss border post at Konstanz/Emmishofen to clarify whether the entry ban against me had already expired, or when it would end. My identity details were checked. I was not arrested and left the border area again.

22.11.2022

End of the time-limited entry ban

The entry ban then in force was limited until 22 November 2022.

08.12.2022

20–30 minutes of checks – then arrest

I returned to the same border crossing to clarify my legal position regarding entry. At the decisive intervention I was on German sovereign territory. After approximately 20 to 30 minutes of telephone and system-based checks, Swiss border officers gave me a binding instruction to enter a room on the Swiss side; without that instruction I would not have crossed the border. In that room I was informed that I was under arrest. The system status, communications and the legal basis for this cross-border exercise of sovereign authority are being reconstructed from the original records.

2022–2024

Sentence enforcement

Enforcement of the custodial sentence imposed by the 2013 judgment. The complete sentence-enforcement file and the underlying enforcement records are to be obtained.

30.10.2024

Second removal and new entry ban

After completion of the sentence enforcement, there was a further removal and a new entry ban. The complete orders should show in particular what current risk assessment formed the basis, what role the 2013 judgment played, and whether and how Schengen/SIS-wide effect was ordered.

Aug. 2026

Systematic review

Since 3 August 2026, several requests for files, disclosure and information have been sent by registered mail with dispatch evidence. Further specialised records and evidence-preservation requests have been prepared. In parallel, a criminal complaint concerning the border incident and specialist legal review of a possible revision of the 2013 judgment are being prepared.

Evidence and questions matrix

What is documented – and what still needs to be clarified?

The following overview deliberately distinguishes between records already available, events personally experienced, and points that can only be clarified through official files or independent reconstruction. It is updated whenever new documents are received.

Document available A document is already available and can later be published in a redacted web version. The event is described from my own direct experience and, where possible, checked against original records. Records requested The decisive official records are being specifically requested. To be established objectively The point is to be tested using independent documents, register data, surveying records or other evidence.

Leasing agreement / 16 July 2012

Document available

Available: Written confirmation from the leasing company of full repayment of the leasing agreement and authorisation to delete code 178, “Change of registered keeper prohibited”.

To be clarified: What did the court know in 2013 about this completion of the leasing agreement, and what significance was attributed to it in relation to the criminal allegations?

Vehicle and registered-keeper data

To be established objectively

Current status: Available vehicle records are being compared with historical registration and licensing data.

To be clarified: Who was registered as the keeper at each relevant point in time, and when was a change of registered keeper actually permitted?

Erlach Regional Police incident

During detention pending removal, I was questioned by two officers of the Erlach Regional Police/Cantonal Police of Bern about the leased vehicle. The leasing documents were examined; afterwards, no ground for objection was stated to me.

To be clarified: Do an instruction, police report, interview record or file note exist – and were those documents part of the criminal case file at the time?

Residence status and departure

Records requested

Current status: The complete cantonal and federal migration files should document the departure at the time, the residence status and the information provided to the criminal-justice authorities.

To be clarified: On what specific factual basis was unlawful residence assumed in the criminal proceedings?

2013 trial hearing / travel expenses

Records requested

I informed the Cantonal Court that I wished to attend the trial hearing and, because I lacked the necessary means, requested payment of my travel expenses. Travel to Switzerland by land was prohibited; entry was permitted only by air. I received no reply to that letter.

To be clarified: Is the letter in the court file? Was the request decided internally? If so, when, with what content, and by what means was the decision intended to be served? What findings did the court make as to the reason for my absence?

Court-appointed defence

Records requested

I had terminated the mandate of the lawyer concerned approximately two years before the trial hearing. The same lawyer was later appointed as court-appointed defence counsel against my wishes.

To be clarified: When and on what basis was the court appointment made? What objections on my part were documented, how were they decided, and what communication actually took place after the appointment?

Sentence enforcement 2013–2022

To be established objectively

Incomplete file record: It has not yet been fully reconstructed what enforcement steps were actually initiated after the judgment became final.

To be clarified: Orders to report for sentence, national or international alerts, mutual-assistance or extradition requests, and the respective dates.

Border incident of 8 December 2022

Location stated as established fact

I went to the border post to clarify my legal position regarding entry. At the decisive conversation and first binding intervention I was on German sovereign territory. After approximately 20–30 minutes of telephone and system-based checks, Swiss border officers instructed me to enter a room on the Swiss side; without that instruction I would not have crossed the border. In that room I was informed that I was under arrest.

To be clarified: The identity of the officers, operational and communication data, the specific detention/enforcement instrument, and the legal basis for Swiss border officers exercising sovereign authority on German territory.

Sentence enforcement 2022–2024

Records to be requested / obtained

Current status: The period during which the custodial sentence from the 2013 judgment was enforced is known; the complete sentence-enforcement file is not yet available for this documentation.

To be clarified: Legal bases for enforcement, detention and sentence-enforcement decisions, service of documents, and the subsequent migration-law measures.

Criminal record extracts 2004 / 2009 / 2011

Document available

Three official extracts issued by the Federal Office of Justice are available. On all three dates, the official finding is that I was not recorded in the criminal record.

Documentary significance: Comparison with later public characterisations and with the migration-law risk assessment.

2010 entry ban / security risk assessment

Federal records requested

To be reconstructed are the original order of 19 November 2010, the classification of the case, the factual basis of the security risk assessment, the territorial effect and the later time limitation.

To be clarified: What made the case in 2010 so serious that an initially indefinite entry ban was imposed?

2024 entry ban / Schengen effect

Records requested

The second removal and the new entry ban are to be examined separately from 2010, on the basis of the complete order, the risk assessment and any SIS/SIRENE communications.

To be clarified: What current and specific threat was considered to exist in 2024, and which states were informed of it?

Working rule: Events personally experienced are described clearly. Disputed official and legal questions are not resolved merely by repetition, but are checked against original records, register data and independent evidence. Conversely, an available document is not assessed without examining its significance.

Current status

Ongoing review

A status is changed to “Filed” only where dispatch or personal delivery is documented. A completed draft alone is not treated as proof of filing.

Ready for dispatch The letter or request is completed; dispatch evidence has not yet been documented.
Filed Dispatch or personal delivery is documented.
Response available An official response is available and is being incorporated into the further review.
Documented dispatch record · August 2026

3 Aug 2026 · Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden: access to and release of the complete criminal file · Cantonal Court of Obwalden: release of all court records · Rudolf & Bieri / attorney Christian Affentranger: complete client file · KNF Holding, Schenkon: complete client file and information concerning termination of the mandate · attorney Leo von Moos, Sachseln: complete client file · attorney Leo von Moos, Sarnen: complete client file.

25 Aug 2026 · Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden: four separate records requests concerning GMAC/leasing, the Schmocker investigative strand, forensic-psychiatric expert Richner, and police custody/psychiatric transfer in 2010 · Obwalden Cantonal Police: police custody in 2010, coercive measures and psychiatric transfer · Lucerne Psychiatry Ltd., Sarnen clinic: complete patient documentation concerning the 2010 inpatient stay · Wauwilermoos Prison · Grosshof Prison · Stans Investigation and Remand Prison · Zug Office for Corrections: objections concerning the enforcement basis and preservation of files/data · Opel Finance SA in liquidation (formerly GMAC Suisse SA): historical leasing file and contacts with authorities.

27 Aug 2026 · Swiss Paraplegic Centre Nottwil: patient file and imaging · Zug Cantonal Hospital: patient file, imaging and appointment/communication history · OrthoCenter Munich: treatment, imaging, billing and AXA records concerning the workplace accident of 12 October 2023.

1 · Border incident and arrest chain 8 Dec 2022

Ready for dispatch

Recipients: Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (FOCBS/BAZG) · Thurgau Cantonal Police · Frauenfeld Cantonal Prison · Obwalden Cantonal Police · Federal Police Inspectorate Konstanz

The specialised evidence-preservation and records requests concerning the border incident of 8 December 2022 have been prepared. They seek to reconstruct the two border contacts, the 20–30 minutes of enquiries, the exercise of sovereign authority on German territory, the transport chain and the system status at the time.

Core question: What specific arrest, transfer or sentence-enforcement instrument was active and operative at what time, and on what legal basis did Swiss border officers exercise sovereign authority on German territory?

2 · Wanted-person alerts, SIS and international enforcement

Response received · follow-up ready to send

Recipients: fedpol · Swiss Federal Office of Justice · where relevant, competent SIS/SIRENE/wanted-person authorities

On 26 August 2026 fedpol provided the current system status: at the time of its check there was no entry in SIS or RIPOL; the information concerning Interpol was expressly qualified. A supplementary records and evidence-preservation request covering the historical data chain from 2013 to 2026 has been prepared.

The Swiss Federal Office of Justice and other competent authorities are also being asked to disclose whether and when international wanted-person, arrest, extradition or mutual-assistance measures were initiated between 2013 and 2022.

3 · Sentence enforcement and independent review of detention

Partly filed · follow-ups ready to send

Recipients: Cantonal Court of Obwalden · Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden · Grosshof Prison · Wauwilermoos Prison · Stans Investigation and Remand Prison · Zug Office for Corrections · Obwalden Sentence and Measures Enforcement

On 3 August 2026 all court records were requested from the Cantonal Court of Obwalden and the complete criminal file was requested from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden. On 25 August 2026 additional registered letters were sent to Grosshof, Wauwilermoos, Stans and the Zug Office for Corrections. Specific follow-up requests concerning the detention/enforcement basis, the asserted 2015 detention instrument and any judicial review of detention have been prepared.

Core question: Which independent judicial body conducted a substantive review of the concrete sentence enforcement after my objections?

4 · Procedural chain: OAG · Zurich · Obwalden

Request for records prepared

Recipients: Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland · Office of the Senior Public Prosecutor of Zurich · Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden

The targeted requests concerning the 2023/2024 transfer correspondence and the four Obwalden AK files have been prepared. A general request for access to and release of the complete criminal file was already sent by registered mail to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden on 3 August 2026.

Core question: After Obwalden took over criminal proceedings against its own public officials, what specific investigative steps and what recusal or independence safeguards followed?

5 · Migration, risk assessment and Schengen

Ready for dispatch

Recipients: Migration Service of the Canton of Bern · State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) · competent federal/SIS/SIRENE bodies

The Bern Migration Service, SEM and other federal bodies are to disclose the 2010 and 2024 exclusion measures, risk assessments, the initially indefinite duration, later limitation, service and notice of legal remedies, and SIS/SIRENE data.

Core questions: What made the case a “serious case” in 2010? What current risk was assumed in 2024? Was the effect Swiss-only or Schengen-wide, and which states were informed?

6 · 2013 judgment and revision

Primary records being obtained · revision in preparation

Recipients: Cantonal Court of Obwalden · Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden · Rudolf & Bieri / attorney Christian Affentranger · KNF Holding · attorney Leo von Moos (Sachseln and Sarnen) · Opel Finance / formerly GMAC Suisse SA · subsequently an independent Swiss criminal-defence/revision specialist

The process of obtaining the primary records is documented: on 3 August 2026 the complete criminal and court files and several complete client files were requested. On 25 August 2026 four further records requests were sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Obwalden concerning GMAC, Schmocker, the Richner expert report and police custody/psychiatric transfer in 2010, together with a data-access request to Opel Finance concerning the historical GMAC leasing file. Documented requests were also sent to Obwalden Cantonal Police concerning police custody, coercive measures and the psychiatric transfer in 2010, and to Lucerne Psychiatry Ltd., Sarnen clinic, for the complete patient documentation of the inpatient stay at that time.

Principle: First secure the original records and any potentially new or previously unused evidence; then assess the statutory grounds for revision under Articles 410 et seq. of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure with specialist counsel.

7 · Workplace accident 12 Oct 2023

Partly documented · records requests filed

Recipients: Wauwilermoos Prison · Zug Office for Corrections · Swiss Paraplegic Centre Nottwil · Zug Cantonal Hospital · OrthoCenter Munich · additionally Obwalden Sentence and Measures Enforcement / AXA in the further process

The workplace accident at Wauwilermoos Prison and the later admission that the AXA accident notification was initially omitted are documented. On 27 August 2026 records requests were sent by registered mail to the Swiss Paraplegic Centre Nottwil, Zug Cantonal Hospital and OrthoCenter Munich. Further letters had already been sent on 25 August 2026 to Wauwilermoos and the Zug Office for Corrections.

Still to be reviewed: medical course, imaging, appointment and communication history, costs, insurance handling and causation.

8 · Independent legal review

Enquiries prepared

Recipients: Independent Swiss criminal-defence/revision lawyers to be selected

An independent Swiss criminal-defence lawyer with experience in revision proceedings is being sought. A conflicts check is required before confidential files are transmitted.

Additionally: The documentation is intended to make individual questions accessible for independent review by specialists in criminal, constitutional, migration and state-liability law.

Transparency note: Responses will not merely be summarised; they will be linked to the relevant request and evidence status. Factual corrections will be incorporated. New documents may change the current assessment.

Revision review

Revision of the 2013 judgment

Whether the judgment should be set aside is to be examined not through slogans, but by reference to the statutory grounds for revision, the state of the record at the time, and possible new facts or evidence.

Of particular importance is the question of which exculpatory documents were actually known to the court at the time and which may not have formed part of the court file or may not have been taken into account.

Proceedings in absentia

Trial hearing in absentia

I informed the Cantonal Court that I wished to attend the trial hearing and, because I lacked the necessary means, requested payment of the necessary travel expenses. I was prohibited from travelling to the hearing by land; entry was permitted only by air. I received no reply to that letter.

I had terminated the mandate of the lawyer concerned approximately two years before the trial hearing. He was later appointed as court-appointed defence counsel against my wishes; at the hearing, he sought my acquittal and compensation.

The court file should show whether my request for travel expenses was decided internally, whether and how any decision was intended to be served, and what information concerning legal remedies was actually provided after the judgment in absentia.

If the foundation falls

What a successful revision could mean for the consequential measures

A successful revision would not automatically render every earlier or later administrative order void. It would, however, require renewed scrutiny of the basis of every measure that was built on the 2013 judgment or on the same criminal allegations.

2013

Judgment

If the judgment is set aside and replaced by an acquittal or discontinuance of the proceedings, the criminal-law starting point changes fundamentally.

2022–2024

Arrest & sentence enforcement

It would be necessary to examine what consequences the revision has for the deprivation of liberty already served and for possible claims to compensation or satisfaction.

12.10.2023

Workplace accident

The accident occurred during sentence enforcement. If the revision is successful, an additional question of causation arises: would I have been at that workplace at all without that sentence enforcement?

30.10.2024

Second removal & entry ban

It would be necessary to examine which parts of the migration-law reasoning were based on the judgment, the sentence enforcement or risk assumptions derived from them.

2010

First entry ban – separate, but connected

This order pre-dated the judgment and therefore does not automatically fall with it. It would nevertheless require renewed examination insofar as it was based on the same allegations of fraud/misappropriation or the same risk assumption.

Express reservation of rights

I expressly reserve the right, once I have full access to the records and in particular after completion of any revision proceedings, to pursue all claims available to me under criminal procedure, state-liability law, administrative law, social-insurance law and any other applicable law.

This reservation includes, in particular, possible claims arising from deprivation of liberty, economic loss, health consequences, the workplace accident, and direct or indirect consequences of the removal and exclusion measures, insofar as the statutory requirements are met.

Each measure will be examined separately: who decided? On what factual and legal basis? What loss or harm resulted? Which authority bears legal responsibility?

My objectiveI will not bring this review to an end until the decisive records have been disclosed, the lawfulness of the interventions has been examined, and – where breaches of duty are established – effective legal consequences have been clarified.

If independent proceedings establish serious breaches of official duty, I expect not only a legal finding but also the disciplinary, employment-related or criminal consequences provided for by law. Where authorities acted correctly, that too will be documented.

Current focus of the review

Border incident of 8 December 2022

This section distinguishes the stated factual sequence from the legal, technical and official questions that still require clarification from the original records.

Purpose of the border visit

Neither in mid-November 2022 nor on 8 December 2022 did I go to the border post in order to enter Switzerland on my own initiative. The purpose was to clarify my legal position regarding entry with the competent border authority.

Established fact

Location at the decisive intervention

At the decisive conversation and the first binding exercise of sovereign authority, I was on German sovereign territory. The course of the state border at this crossing can additionally be documented from official border and surveying records.

Telephone enquiries

For approximately 20–30 minutes, telephone and system-based checks concerning my person were carried out. Immediately afterwards the situation changed and Swiss border officers instructed me to enter a room on the Swiss side.

The border crossing was not voluntary

I was given a binding instruction to move towards a room on the Swiss side and enter it. Without that instruction I would not have crossed the border or entered the room. In that room I was informed that I was under arrest.

Records to clarify

Timing and basis of the arrest

It remains to be established whether an arrest, transfer, wanted-person or sentence-enforcement order already existed before the control, when it was issued or activated, and when the border officers became aware of it.

Records requested

Rights after deprivation of liberty

I requested legal counsel. I was not given immediate access to a lawyer. I also did not receive the document said to underlie the arrest despite later written requests. The records should show how these requests were documented and legally handled.

Six core questions for the competent authorities

  1. Which Swiss border officers were involved in the decisive intervention on German sovereign territory on 8 December 2022?
  2. On what legal basis did Swiss border officers exercise binding sovereign authority over a person located on German sovereign territory?
  3. Who was contacted during the approximately 20–30 minutes of enquiries, and which databases or authorities were consulted?
  4. What arrest, wanted-person, transfer or sentence-enforcement basis existed at what time, and when was it displayed or communicated to the border officers?
  5. Were German border, police or customs authorities informed, involved or asked for consent before or during the intervention?
  6. When and how was I informed of the reason and legal basis for the deprivation of liberty and of the available means of legal review?
Important: This website does not itself determine the criminal-law assessment of the incident. The intended criminal complaint in Germany is meant to enable an independent investigation and assessment of the sequence, the persons involved, communications, jurisdiction and legal basis.

Planned public archive

Documents and sources

The public document archive is being built progressively. Newly included are the official criminal record extracts from 2004, 2009 and 2011, as well as the separate line of inquiry concerning security, public order and Schengen. Only versions specifically prepared for publication will be made public. Unredacted originals remain in a separate evidence archive and are not stored on the public web server.

Court and procedural records

in preparation

Judgment of 20 November 2013, trial-hearing record, orders, notices of legal remedies, records concerning the proceedings in absentia and the defence at the time.

Leasing / vehicle

initial documents available

GMAC records, confirmation of 16 July 2012, historical vehicle and registered-keeper data and, where applicable, customs and export records.

Migration, security & Schengen

Records requested

Entry bans of 2010 and 2024, risk assessments, classification as a serious case, later time limitation, service, SIS/SIRENE data, Schengen-wide effect and communications to other states.

Border incident 8 Dec 2022

Investigation / obtaining records

Criminal complaint, confirmation of receipt, operational and communication records, border and surveying records, and later official responses.

Sentence enforcement 2013–2024

Records to be obtained

Enforcement orders, orders to report for sentence, alerts, service records, mutual-assistance or extradition processes, and records concerning sentence enforcement in 2022–2024.

Current review

ongoing

Requests for records, enquiries to lawyers, confirmations of receipt, case references and responses from the authorities contacted.

D-0001 · GMAC Suisse SA · 16.07.2012Confirmation of full repayment / authorisation to delete code 178Publication version planned after redaction and final review
D-0002 · Judgment · 20.11.2013Relevant findings of the Cantonal Court of ObwaldenPublication only in a legally reviewed and data-protection-compliant version
D-0003 · Criminal complaint concerning border incidentCriminal complaint to the Konstanz Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning 8 December 2022After actual filing: publication of the redacted version together with confirmation of receipt is planned
D-0004 · Criminal record extracts · 2004 / 2009 / 2011Three extracts issued by the Federal Office of Justice stating “is not recorded in the criminal record”Originals available · publication only after redaction of addresses, identification numbers and signatures

Publication rules

  • The original remains the original: Original files are archived unchanged; only a separate WEB version is made public.
  • Protection of third parties: Addresses, private contact details, signatures and information concerning uninvolved private individuals are reviewed before publication and redacted where appropriate.
  • Traceability: Each document receives a fixed document number so that quotations and timeline entries can later be linked unambiguously.
  • No hidden originals: Unredacted records are not stored in unlinked folders or backups on the public web server.

For newsrooms and independent observers

Media section

This documentation is expressly intended also for investigative newsrooms, human-rights organisations and experts who wish to examine or monitor the further course of events independently. The aim is not to adopt a predetermined assessment, but to investigate the underlying events on the basis of verifiable records.

Research entry point

The “case in 5 minutes” section is available as a concise entry point. The set of seven key documents will be added progressively.

Original sources

Relevant documents are to be made accessible in publication versions prepared in accordance with data-protection requirements and clearly identified by document number, date and source.

Official responses

Requests for records, criminal complaints, confirmations of receipt, case references and subsequent responses are to be documented chronologically so that progress remains verifiable.

International publication

The core content is to be translated progressively into additional languages. In particular, the questions concerning SIS, Schengen-wide effect and cross-border official communication are to be made accessible to relevant European specialist bodies.

Expert review

Experts in criminal law, constitutional/public law, migration law and state liability are invited to review individual legal and evidentiary questions independently. Divergent professional assessments will not be excluded.

Contact for media and experts

Until a dedicated media address is established, media enquiries should be sent to:

info@imnamendesvolkes.com

Responses welcome: All authorities and persons referred to are invited to respond factually to the matters published. Corrections and exculpatory documents will be reviewed and published in an appropriate manner. The aim is documentary clarification, not prejudgment.

Editorial principle: Serious allegations are not published as fact merely because they have been made. Where the evidentiary record remains incomplete, the presentation is expressly identified as my own account, an open question or a matter requiring review.

Enabling independent review

Support

Until now, I have financed both this documentation project and my current personal situation myself. Since 1 November 2024, I have been covering my living expenses without any regular income. The costs of continuing the review of this case are now added to that. Every voluntary contribution helps make the next steps possible.

01

Support the project “In the Name of the People?”

The review generates ongoing costs: obtaining and copying records, registered mail, translations, technical infrastructure, legal advice and proceedings, as well as medical and other expert reports. Independent expert reports in particular can cost several thousand euros or Swiss francs.

Anyone who wishes to support the continued independent review can make a voluntary contribution.

Until a dedicated project account can be opened, support is currently possible via an international money-transfer service with personal cash collection.

Support the project

Please contact me briefly before sending money. The recipient details required for the transfer will be provided directly. Bank details will be added as soon as the intended accounts can be opened.

02

Personal support during my incapacity for work

Until my occupational accident on 12 October 2023, I had never depended on outside financial help and had never needed social assistance.

I have been unable to work since that accident. AXA accident insurance initially issued confirmation of cost coverage and revoked it around five months later. Both the question of cost coverage and the outstanding daily allowance payments now have to be pursued through legal proceedings.

As long as these benefits remain unpaid, I have no regular income. Since 1 November 2024, I have been financing my living expenses from my own funds. Those resources are now largely exhausted.

Every euro helps me cover my living expenses and continue the necessary next steps.

Until I can open my own bank account, personal support is also possible via an international money-transfer service with personal cash collection.

Personal support

Please contact me briefly before sending money. The recipient details required for the transfer will be provided directly.

Transparency

Project support and personal support are deliberately presented separately.

Project-related funds are intended in particular for documentation, obtaining records, legal review, translations and necessary expert reports. Personal support is intended for my living expenses while my incapacity for work continues.

Both forms of support are voluntary payments to a private individual. They are not tax-deductible donations to a charitable organisation.

Once the intended bank accounts can be opened, the relevant bank details will be added to this page.

Interim solution active

Until the bank accounts are opened, support is possible after prior contact through an international money-transfer service with cash collection.

Why this project matters

It is about more than my own case

“In the Name of the People?” is more than a review of my own case.

No one should be accused of, or convicted of, an offence they did not commit or that never occurred.

Nor should criminal allegations be treated without scrutiny as established facts when they have far-reaching consequences for a person.

In my case, a central contradiction is documented:

Between the granting of my residence permit in 2004 and my removal from Switzerland in November 2010, I had not been convicted of either fraud or misappropriation.

Nevertheless, the decision used to justify my removal or exclusion referred to the offences of “fraud and misappropriation”.

At the time of my removal, there was no conviction for fraud or misappropriation.

That is precisely why it must be clarified on what factual and legal basis these allegations were used in an official decision at that time.

No person should be criminalised in order to justify a removal. Official decisions that profoundly affect a person’s life must be based on verifiable facts and procedures governed by the rule of law.

This project is intended to make such contradictions visible and verifiable through the original records and to help ensure that comparable situations do not simply remain unexamined.

Let the records speak.

Contact

For general information, media enquiries and questions about the documentation:

info@imnamendesvolkes.com

Newsrooms, human-rights organisations and interested experts are welcome to follow the further review. Information and documents received will be examined carefully.

Other affected persons may also get in touch. Comparable experiences will only be considered for publication where specific decisions, correspondence or other verifiable records are available. Unverified allegations will not be adopted.

This website is a provisional documentation site and is being continuously expanded.