Talk:Gustl Mollath

Translation of the German Wiki article (edit state: 06-13-13), released under Public Domain

Your help is more than welcome! Feel free to contribute!

Instructions: Just use the {{under construction |comment= } } template ( help:Template:In_use ) and indicate in the |comment= section which part you choose to translate in order to avoid double translations. It's a good idea to consecutively translate the article in order to avoid swiss cheese text and a big mess. I.e. if Part 9 is the last part with a {{under construction |comment= } } template, proceed with Part 10. Don't be shy, errors will be corrected! Pro tip: copy parts of the German Wiki source code and paste it into a professional translator or the Google translator for a rough translation and then refine the outcome. It'll save you a lot of time and energy. Even professional translators do that, except using Google :) But you'll see how fast you'll progress. The ref-tags will be translated, too, but this can be fixed in the end. Don't wrack your head about that. The text translation is what matters. PS: Don't forget to share this with your friends! Thanks! --92.194.62.81 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gustl Ferdinand Mollath (* 7. November 1956 in Nuremberg) is a German defendant, who was acquitted in absence of criminal responsibility in a trial, now being the basis of a broad, public controversy. Because of a judges order, he was admitted as criminally insane to Bezirkskrankenhaus Bayreuth, a forensic mental institution. The indictment called for aggravated assault and wrongful deprivation of personal liberty against his former ex-wife as well as damage to property. The final judgment of the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (District Court Nuermberg-Fürth) deemed him dangerous to society in 2006 and admitted him to a mental institution. The court justifies this decision, amongst other things, with the paranoid belief system Mollath had developed, which shows up partly in the belief that his former ex-wife is involved in a complex system of tax evasion. A broader audience noticed the case when Report Mainz (investigative TV magazine) released a review of 2003 by the HypoVereinsbank (German bank) on 13. November 2012 , who backs up Mollath's claims.

A year earlier the magazine had raised the question whether Mollath's tax evasion allegations had been wrongly interpreted as part of a paranoid delusional system, and whether he was erroneously in forensic psychiatry.

On 10 June 2013 the former wife, whose credibility has been questioned by the prosecution before a resumption request, spoke for the first time to the press. To her representation, the black money transactions was never an issue before the divorce. There are independent witnesses, who could testify to the violence of Gustl Mollath towards her before marriage, and also against her own mother.

Life

Mollath attended a Waldorf School and graduated in 1976 with a subject-linked university entrance qualification. He then began to studying mechanical engineering, which he later quit. In 1981 he worked for about two years as a controller at MAN and then founded the automotive Augusto M. workshop, specialized in the trade of tires, vehicle tuning and restoration of vintage cars.

1978 he met his future wife, Petra Mollath. She worked from 1990 as a Financial Advisor at the HypoVereinsbank. They married in 1991. According to her, a violent confrontation with assault happened in august 2001 in their apartment. In 2002 she moved out.

Mollath lost his father in 1960 and his mother in 1980, both due to cancer.

In September 2003 the wife turned to a doctor who wrote an opinion because of her representations, that Gustl Mollath is most likely suffering from a serious psychiatric illness. The document has been issued on 23 September, faxed-transfered by the lawyer of the wife to the District Court Straubing, whereupon it was used for alleged aggravated assaults leading to criminal proceedings against Mollath before the District Court of Nuremberg. Mollath dismissed two proposed dates for assessment of his mental state in 2003. Mid-2004 and again in early 2005, he was therefore admitted by the court to a psychiatric hospital in order to get a psychological assessment. Meanwhile Mollath was divorced from his wife in 2004. End of 2005 he was charged of assault to which the accusation of damaging car tires was added.

In February 2006, Mollath was deemed as a public danger leading to his hospitalization. After two changes of the institution, Mollath was hospitalized April 2006 in the Straubing District Hospital.

The District Court Nuermberg-Fürth eventually acquitted Mollath in August 2006, because of his attested state of mind, yet saw the accusation proved. The court ordered his hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital because other actions were to be feared. The judgment was based, among other things, on the opinion of expert Klaus Leipziger, PhD from Bayreuth, who attested Mollath paranoid delusions revolving around a "black money complex".

Since mid-2009, Mollath is hospitalized in the District Hospital of Bayreuth.

Leben (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Mollath besuchte eine Waldorfschule und schloss 1976 mit der Fachhochschulreife ab. Anschließend begann er ein Maschinenbaustudium, das er später abbrach. 1981 arbeitete er für rund zwei Jahre im Bereich Controlling bei MAN und gründete danach die Kfz-Werkstatt Augusto M., die auf Reifenhandel, Tuning und Restaurierung von Oldtimern spezialisiert war. Mollath verlor 1960 seinen Vater, 1980 seine Mutter, die er bis zuletzt pflegte, durch Krebserkrankungen.

1978 lernte Mollath seine spätere Frau Petra kennen. Sie arbeitete von 1990 an als Vermögensberaterin, zuletzt bei der HypoVereinsbank. Sie heirateten 1991. Im August 2001 kam es nach Angaben der Ehefrau in der gemeinsamen Wohnung zu einer tätlichen Auseinandersetzung mit Körperverletzung. 2002 zog sie aus.

Die Ehefrau wandte sich im September 2003 an eine Ärztin, die aufgrund ihrer Schilderungen eine Stellungnahme schrieb, der zufolge Mollath mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit an einer ernstzunehmenden psychiatrischen Erkrankung litt. Die Bescheinigung wurde am 23. September vom Rechtsanwalt der Ehefrau an das Amtsgericht Straubing gefaxt, woraufhin es wegen des Vorwurfs gefährlicher Körperverletzung zu einem Strafverfahren gegen Mollath vor dem Amtsgericht Nürnberg kam. Zwei vorgeschlagene Termine zur ambulanten Begutachtung seines Geisteszustandes nahm Mollath 2003 nicht wahr. Mitte 2004 und nochmals Anfang 2005 wurde er deshalb zur Erstellung eines psychologischen Gutachtens durch Gerichtsbeschluss in eine psychiatrische Klinik eingewiesen. Zwischenzeitlich wurde Mollath 2004 von seiner Frau geschieden. Ende 2005 kam zum Vorwurf der Körperverletzung der Vorwurf des Zerstechens von Autoreifen hinzu.

Im Februar 2006 erging aufgrund des Gutachtens, das Mollath als gemeingefährlich einstufte, ein Beschluss zu seiner einstweiligen Unterbringung. Nach zweimaligem Wechsel der Einrichtung befand sich Mollath von April 2006 an im Bezirkskrankenhaus Straubing.

Das Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth sprach Mollath im August 2006 schließlich wegen Schuldunfähigkeit frei, da es die Taten als erwiesen sah und die „Aufhebung der Steuerungsfähigkeit […] gemäß § 20 StGB […] nicht ausgeschlossen werden“ konnte. Das Gericht ordnete seine weitere Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus an, da weitere Taten zu befürchten seien.[1][3] Das Urteil stützte sich unter anderem auf das Gutachten des Sachverständigen Klaus Leipziger aus Bayreuth, das Mollath paranoide Wahnvorstellungen attestierte, die sich im Wesentlichen um einen „Schwarzgeldkomplex“ drehten.

Seit Mitte 2009 befindet sich Mollath in dem Bezirkskrankenhaus Bayreuth.

Political and media discussion

Numerous media outlets, in particular the Süddeutsche Zeitung (major German newspaper) and Report Mainz (investigative TV magazine), reported critically for years about the Mollath case, for example about the trial management. They complain about mistakes in the court hearings and the selective consideration of evidence. For their series of articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung about the Mollath case, Olaf Przybilla and Uwe Ritzel, two journalists, were awarded with the 3rd prize of the Guardian Prize of the German daily press (Wächterpreis der deutschen Tagespresse)

Politische und mediale Diskussion

Click [show] on the right to expand

Zahlreiche Medien, insbesondere die Süddeutsche Zeitung und Report Mainz, berichten seit Jahren kritisch über das Verfahren gegen Mollath, zum Beispiel über die Prozessführung. Sie warfen und werfen dem befassten Gericht Verfahrensfehler und die selektive Berücksichtigung von Beweismitteln vor.

Für ihre Artikelserie in der Süddeutschen Zeitung über den Fall Gustl Mollath wurden im März 2013 Olaf Przybilla und Uwe Ritzel mit dem 3. Preis des Wächterpreises ausgezeichnet.

First report from Report Mainz

The case was first presented on TV by Report Mainz on 13 December 2011 Mollaths former wife was employed by the HypoVereinsbank and Gustl Mollath accused her and other employees to handle tax evasions for customers. The HypoVereinsbank then performed an internal investigation and subsequently laid her off in 2003, as well as another employees.

In light of these findings, court juror Mr. Westenrieder criticized the trial procedures. He assumed that the money laundering allegations by Mollath were inaccurate. The presiding judge interrupted and threatened Mollath with throwing him out of court, if he would ever mention the the issue of tax evasion and black money transfers again.

The report also criticized that the court didn't consider documents and handwritten notes about accounts in Switzerland, as well as the comprehensive 106 pages Mollath presented during the trial procedures.

The report also accused the state prosecutor that they had detailed information from Mollath's complaint against his ex-wife of 11 June 2003 to pursue and check if there were tax evasion transfers going on. The Nuremberg state prosecutors dismissed these complaints as "too general" The state prosecutors stated to the magazine in writing that still there is no reason for an investigation.

Erster Bericht von Report Mainz (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Erstmals im Fernsehen dargestellt wurde der Fall in einem Beitrag der Magazinsendung Report Mainz vom 13. Dezember 2011. Mollaths frühere Frau war demnach bei der HypoVereinsbank beschäftigt und Mollath hatte sie und weitere Mitarbeiter beschuldigt, für Kunden Schwarzgeldgeschäfte abzuwickeln. Die HypoVereinsbank hatte daraufhin interne Ermittlungen vorgenommen und ihr 2003 gekündigt, ebenso einem weiteren Mitarbeiter.

Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Erkenntnisse kritisierte in dem Bericht der am Urteil gegen Mollath beteiligte Schöffe Westenrieder das Verfahren. Er sei zur Zeit des Prozesses davon ausgegangen, dass die Geldwäsche-Vorwürfe Mollaths ungenau gewesen seien. Der Vorsitzende Richter habe Mollath jedes Mal lautstark unterbrochen und mit Saalverweis gedroht, wenn er das Thema Steuerhinterziehung und Schwarzgeldverschiebung angesprochen habe.

Der Bericht kritisierte zudem, dass das Gericht Belege und handschriftliche Notizen zu Konten in der Schweiz nicht beachtete, die Mollath während des Verfahrens in einem 106 Seiten umfassenden „Duraplusordner“ eingereicht hatte.

Der Beitrag warf der Staatsanwaltschaft vor, sie hätte den detaillierten Angaben einer Strafanzeige Mollaths gegen seine Ex-Frau vom 11. Juni 2003 nachgehen müssen und überprüfen müssen, ob es Schwarzgeldtransfers gab. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg hatte diese Anzeige als „zu pauschal“ abgelehnt. Die Staatsanwaltschaft teilte dazu dem Magazin schriftlich mit, dass auch weiterhin kein Anlass für ein Ermittlungsverfahren bestehe.

Urgency motion in the Bavarian Parliament

After an urgency motion of the Bavarian SPD party in the Bavarian Parliament, the Minister of Justice Beate Merk (CSU party) defended herself in a speech in front of the Parliament on 15 December 2011 against the impression Mollath had been hospitalized due to his criminal complaint. The following day she was explaining through a spokesman, that the accommodation Mollaths in psychiatry was a consequence of his crimes and had nothing to do with his wife or his lawsuit against the bank. She said, Mollath harmed his wife with strangulation marks on the neck, large hematoma and a bleeding bite wound. He also stabbed dozens of car tires, including those on vehicles of the wife's lawyers. His accommodation was confirmed by the Federal court and is observerd regularly. She defended herself against the allegations that the state prosecution had failed to act because of instructions from leading politicians. Thereupon, the state prosecutor himself directed some questions towards the HypoVereinsbank.

Dringlichkeitsantrag im Bayerischen Landtag (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Nach einem Dringlichkeitsantrag der SPD-Fraktion im Bayerischen Landtag verteidigte sich die Justizministerin Beate Merk (CSU) in einer Rede vor dem Landtag am 15. Dezember 2011 gegen den Eindruck, Mollath sei aufgrund seiner Strafanzeige untergebracht worden. Am folgenden Tag ließ sie durch einen Sprecher erklären, die Unterbringung Mollaths in der Psychiatrie sei Folge seiner Straftaten und habe mit seiner Strafanzeige gegen seine Frau und die Bank nichts zu tun. Mollath habe seiner Frau Würgemale am Hals, großflächige Hämatome und eine blutende Bisswunde zugefügt. Er habe zudem Dutzende Autoreifen zerstochen, unter anderem an Fahrzeugen von Anwälten seiner Frau. Seine Unterbringung sei vom Bundesgerichtshof bestätigt und werde regelmäßig überprüft.[19] Sie wehrte sich gegen die Vorwürfe, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft auf Grund von Weisungen aus der Politik untätig geblieben sei. Die Staatsanwaltschaft selbst richtete daraufhin brieflich einige Fragen an die HypoVereinsbank.

Second and third report from Report Mainz

The case reached the general public after 13 November 2012, when the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Report Mainz again dealt with the Mollath case. Report Mainz had acquired the 2003 audit report of the bank, which made ​​it public in the TV magazine series. According to the results of the investigation, Mollath's allegations were indeed in some areas diffuse, but his wife had actually communicated customers against commissions to a bank in Switzerland and also transferred funds there. They also found allegations to be true, that employees violated the tax code and the Securities Trading Act as well as hints to tax evasion aid. A "well-known personality" has been helped to launder black money.

Report Mainz confronted Minister Merk in an interview with a quote from the audit report, which states that "all verifiable allegations were proven to be true". The magazine put that statement in contrast to her testimony before the Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs on 30 October 2012, where she said Mollath's allegations weren't true. Minister Merk thereupon declared in the interview that no pursuable statements had been proved to be true. The next day she explained in more detail, that the relevant audit report allegations had affected employment law issues and were not pursuable. As far as criminal matters were concerned, the statutes of limitations had already occurred. It was not a question of whether Mollath is telling the truth, but whether he is dangerous or not.

Tax investigator Frank Wehrheim accused Minster Merk, that her statement was a "deliberate false statement". Süddeutsche Zeitung, which was reporting on the case at the same time as Report Mainz, also said that the financial authorities had started investigations after learning of the existence of the audit report.

On 4 December 2012 Report Mainz broached the issue for a third time, this time particularly with regards to the allegation of Judge Brixner's bias in the case. He arranged a call at the tax authorities, that Mollath's allegations were not being pursued.

Zweiter und dritter Bericht von Report Mainz (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

In die breite Öffentlichkeit gelangte der Fall, nachdem am 13. November 2012 die Süddeutsche Zeitung und Report Mainz sich erneut mit dem Fall Mollath beschäftigten.[21] Report Mainz war an den Revisionsbericht der Bank vom März 2003 gelangt, den es in der Folge öffentlich machte.[5] Nach dem Ergebnis der Untersuchung seien Mollaths Vorwürfe zwar in Teilbereichen diffus, aber seine Frau habe tatsächlich Kunden gegen Provisionen an eine Bank in der Schweiz vermittelt und Gelder dorthin transferiert.[5][22] Es seien außerdem, über Mollaths Vorwürfe hinaus, bei anderen Mitarbeitern Verstöße gegen die Abgabenordnung und das Wertpapierhandelsgesetz festgestellt[4][5] und Hinweise auf Beihilfe zur Steuerhinterziehung gefunden worden. So sei einer „allgemein bekannten Persönlichkeit“ geholfen worden, Schwarzgeld zu waschen.[4]

Report Mainz konfrontierte Merk in der Sendung in einem Interview mit einem Zitat aus dem Revisionsbericht, wonach „alle nachprüfbaren Behauptungen sich als zutreffend herausgestellt“ hätten. Das Magazin stellte dies ihrer Aussage vor dem Rechtsausschuss am 30. Oktober 2012[23] gegebenüber, wonach der Bericht[24] die Vorwürfe von Mollath gerade nicht bestätigt hätte.[22] Merk erklärte daraufhin im Interview, dass sich keine verfolgbaren Aussagen bestätigt hätten.[25] Am nächsten Tag erläuterte sie etwas ausführlicher, die laut Revisionsbericht zutreffenden Vorwürfe hätten arbeitsrechtliche Sachverhalte betroffen und seien nicht verfolgbar. Soweit strafrechtliche Sachverhalte betroffen gewesen seien, sei die Verjährung schon eingetreten.[26][27] Es gehe nicht darum, ob Mollath die Wahrheit sage, sondern es gehe um seine Gefährlichkeit.[28][29][30] Der Steuerfahnder Frank Wehrheim warf Merk in der Sendung vor, ihre Aussage sei eine „gewollte Falschaussage“.[24] Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, die den Fall zeitgleich mit Report Mainz aufgegriffen hatte,[31] berichtete darüber hinaus, dass die Finanzbehörden nach Bekanntwerden der Existenz des Revisionsberichts in der Sache Ermittlungen aufgenommen hatten.[32]

Am 4. Dezember 2012 thematisierte Report Mainz den Fall ein drittes Mal, diesmal insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Vorwurf der Befangenheit des Richters Brixner in Mollaths Verfahren.[33] Er habe durch einen Anruf bei der Finanzverwaltung bewirkt, dass Mollaths Anzeigen nicht weiter verfolgt wurden.[34]

Public reactions

The second report evoked a number of public reactions. The opposition in the Bavarian parliament demanded that Merk recede from her office. The bank defended itself against accusations that it did not self-report its breaches of the law, saying periodic audits did not "reveal sufficient information on criminally relevant behaviour of clients or employees that would have made a criminal complaint seem appropriate". According to the bank, no proof of criminal behaviour had been found and the conclusions of the audit had been too vague for any such endeavour. German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung raised objections, calling the bank's statement a "grotesquely trivialising portrayal".

Subsequently, psychiatric assessments of Mollath's mental health, carried out as part of the court proceedings and ongoing investigation, became an issue as well. Juryman Westenrieder said he had already considered the psychiatric assessment "weak" during Mollath's trial, as it had been created, for the most part, from documents alone, i.e. without an analysis of Mollath in person, and because no second assessment had been made. Friedrich Weinberger, retired psychiatrist and chairman of Walter-von-Baeyer-Gesellschaft für Ethik in der Psychiatrie (GEP - Walter von Baeyer Society for Ethics in Psychiatry), who had visited Mollath in Bayreuth in April 2011, Maria E. Fick, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Bavarian State Chamber of Physicians, professor of penal law Henning Ernst Müller (University of Regensburg) as well as the Süddeutsche Zeitung criticised the medical assessment's quality and the verdict's viablity.

The first medical specialist statement on Mollath's mental health was created solely from information provided by his wife; the doctor in question, Gabriele Krach, consultant psychiatrist at the de:Klinikum am Europakanal, had not seen Mollath even once. The first consultant, Michael Wörthmüller, had declared himself partial and recommended Klaus Leipziger instead. Leipziger created a first medical assessment in 2005, based on court documents sent to him, which diagnosed a "paranoid system of thought". In contrast, Hans Simmerl, the consultant commissioned by the local court of Straubing to assess Mollath's mental health during a trial pertaining to his guardianship/health care, conversed with him for several hours in 2007 and did not find any evidence of mental disorders; he ruled out schizophrenic delusions and recommended an end to Mollath's psychiatric care. A 2008 assessment by de:Hans-Ludwig Kröber, however, agreed with the findings of Krach and Leipziger, again without examining Mollath in person. It was a direct reaction to Simmerl's statement, initiated by the responsible "court for the execution of prison sentences" (Strafvollstreckungskammer). Another assessment done by de:Friedemann Pfäfflin in 2010 reaffirmed Leipziger's diagnosis of a "system of delusions" (regarding allegations of black money), but denied his claim that Mollath constituted a danger to the general public, thus negating the condition for his stay in a closed institution.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung also criticised the court proceedings, claiming that exculpatory evidence was ignored for the most part. In addition, Mollath did not trust his court-appointed lawyer, who found himself nearly incapable of helping his client as a result. Like Müller, the newspaper furthermore contradicted Merk's claim that Mollath's classification as a danger to the public and his black money allegations had nothing to do with each other. According to the publication, the assumption of a "black money complex/obsession" was crucial to all verdicts pertaining to Mollath's institutionalisation, beginning in 2006 with the regional court in Nürnberg and influencing even verdicts as late as 2011 and beyond.

Due to said coverage, Merk was under public and political pressure and on November 30, 2012 vowed to have Mollath's case re-opened.

Defending the lawsuit

In December of 2012 Beate Lakotta, journalist for the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel covered the lawsuit and stated that there were plausible explanations for most of the claims laid out by Mollath and his defenders. Contrary to the argument by German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, the medical certificate had not been the result of a conspiracy between a friend of Mollath's former wife, who worked as a receptionist in the issuing doctor's office but had been issued by the son of the owner, himself a medical practitioner. It had only been issued after the charges had already been pressed, but was based on entries in Mollath's medical record from 2011. Lakotta stated that proof for the claim that Mollath's former wife was involved in money laundering and a tax evasion scheme did not exist, as having assets abroad was not a crime. A labor court had overturned the extraordinary termination of her work contract.

Regarding the quote „Alle nachprüfbaren Behauptungen haben sich als zutreffend herausgestellt“ ("Every verifiable claim has turned out true"), one would have to ask what had been verifiable at all. This contains mainly the money transfer operations, which by themselves were not criminally liable. Mollath had answered any of the bank's demands asking for specific leads with the words "Ich mache doch nicht ihre Revisionsarbeit" ("I won't do your audits"). The psychiatric examinators had not based their diagnosis on the money laundry claims, but on the "confused content" of the letters sent by Mollath. Mollath had linked his wife's actions to the defense industry and Rotarian. He was said to have pierced car tires in such a way that drivers would only notice this while driving, narrowly escaping accidents or injury. His involvement in these actions was proven by one of his letters addressed to one of his victims which stated the names of the other victims, accusing them of being part of the tax evasion scheme.

The medical expert Leipziger defended his report against claims that it did not withstand the inquest of the audit report. In the case of delusional disorders there were often underlying truths.

Verteidigung des Verfahrens (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Im Dezember 2012 schrieb die Spiegel-Journalistin Beate Lakotta zum Verfahren gegen Mollath, für viele Ungereimtheiten in diesem Fall ließen sich plausible Erklärungen finden. Das in der Gerichtsverhandlung vorgelegte Attest sei entgegen den Zweifeln der Süddeutschen Zeitung nicht durch ein Komplott einer Freundin von Mollaths Ex-Frau entstanden, die in der Praxis als Sprechstundenhilfe arbeitete, sondern sei vom Sohn der Praxisinhaberin angefertigt worden, der selber Arzt sei. Es sei zwar erst im Zuge der Anzeige erstellt worden, stütze sich aber auf Einträge in der Krankenakte vom 14. August 2001. Einen Beweis für die Behauptung, Mollaths Ex-Frau sei in Schwarzgeldgeschäfte und Beihilfe zur Steuerhinterziehung verstrickt gewesen, gebe es nicht. Geld im Ausland zu besitzen sei an sich legal. Ein Arbeitsgericht habe ihre außerordentliche Kündigung aufgehoben.

Bezüglich „Alle nachprüfbaren Behauptungen haben sich als zutreffend herausgestellt“ müsse gefragt werden, was überhaupt nachprüfbar gewesen sei. Dies seien vor allem die Transfers selbst, die aber strafrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden seien. Mollath habe die Bitte der Bank um konkrete Anhaltspunkte für den von ihm behaupteten „größten und wahnsinnigsten Steuerhinterziehungsskandal“ nur mit „Ich mache doch nicht Ihre Revisionsarbeit“ beantwortet. Die psychiatrischen Gutachter hätten ihre Diagnose nicht mit den Schwarzgeldbehauptungen begründet, sondern mit dem „wirren Inhalt“ der von ihm versandten Briefe. Mollath habe Verbindungen zwischen den Geschäften seiner Frau und der Rüstungsindustrie sowie den Rotariern gestrickt. Er habe die Reifen so zerstochen, dass die Fahrer es in einigen Fällen erst während der Fahrt bemerkten und nur mit Glück nicht zu Schaden kamen. Seine Täterschaft ergebe sich aus einem Brief an einen der Geschädigten; dieser Brief habe die Namen der übrigen aufgelistet und ihnen eine Verbindung zu Schwarzgeldgeschäften vorgeworfen.

Der Gutachter Leipziger verteidigte sein Gutachten gegen Vorwürfe, es sei aufgrund der Feststellungen des Revisionsberichts nicht mehr haltbar. Bei wahnhaften Störungen fände sich im Wahn häufig ein wahrer Kern.

Debate on the judicial panel

On February 28th and March 7th 2013 the judicial panel of the Bavarian parliament debated the causa Mollath. This particularly emphasised the question whether judge Otto Brixner had influenced tax fraud investigations. Roland Jüptner, president of the Bavarian state office for taxes (Bayerisches Landesamt für Steuern), denied this. During the first session, he based this opinion on the fact that if this actually was the case, there would be a remark in the files. German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung subsequently reported that such a remark in fact existed.

A statement by Beate Merk in front of the Bavarian parliament in March 2012 posed a similar situation, stating that the „Duraplus file“ was an „abstruse conglomeration“. It was said to have led, together with the audit report and account movements in Swiss number accounts, to the initiation of several tax crime investigations in December 2012. While at first Jüptner claimed that only a handwritten note - in itself not constituting a „note for the file“ - was existant. The parliamental opposition pointed out that Jüptner himself had written about a „handwritten note for the file“. During a session on March 7th, Jüptner apologised and stated that the fiscal secret had forbidden him from releasing the note, while still assuring that the closing of the proceedings would also have occured without the phone conversation with Brixner. The parliamental opposition remained unconvinced.

Another argument during the March 7th session regarded comments by Nuremberg state attorneys, who, according to German newspaper Die Zeit, had stated during phone conversations that the court ruling was the result of a certain „sloppiness“. Regardless of the apparent careless mistakes the ruling was said to be „essentially correct“. Releasing Mollath as a result of political pressure was said to correspond to a catastrophe for the community, because he was still regarded as a dangerous person. Parliamental opposition demanded to withdraw the case from the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor Nuremberg due to bias. This demand was also based on the fact that the chief public prosecutor Hasso Nerlich had also been responsible for two failed petitions by Mollath in 2004, but the Bavarian ministry for justice and the parliament refused, in part to secure the separation of legislative and judiciary.

Debatten im Rechtsausschuss (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Am 28. Februar und 7. März 2013 gab es Debatten über den Fall Mollath im Rechtsausschuss des Bayerischen Landtages. Diese betrafen insbesondere die Frage, ob es eine Einflussnahme des Richters Otto Brixner auf die Steuerfahndung gab. Der Präsident des Bayerischen Landesamts für Steuern, Roland Jüptner, verneinte dies. Bei der ersten Sitzung gab er als Begründung an, dass es dann eine Aktennotiz hätte geben müssen. Die Süddeutsche Zeitung berichtete daraufhin, ein derartiger Aktenvermerk existiere. Ähnlich sei die Situation auch bezüglich einer Aussage Beate Merks im März 2012 vor dem Landtag, wonach der „Duraplusordner“ ein „abstruses Sammelsurium“ sei. Sie hätte zusammen mit dem Revisionsbericht und Kontoverfügungen von Schweizer Nummernkonten im Dezember 2012 zur Einleitung einzelner Steuerstrafverfahren geführt. Zunächst entgegnete Jüptner, es sei nur eine handschriftliche Notiz vorhanden, diese sei kein Aktenvermerk. Die Opposition wies jedoch auf eine interne Stellungnahme hin, in der Jüptner 2012 selbst von einem „handschriftlichen Aktenvermerk“ geschrieben hatte. In der Sitzung vom 7. März entschuldigte sich Jüptner; er habe den Aktenvermerk wegen des Steuergeheimnisses geheimhalten müssen. Jüptner bestand jedoch auf seiner Auffassung, dass die Einstellung des Verfahrens auch ohne das Telefonat mit Brixner erfolgt wäre. Die Opposition gab sich nicht überzeugt.

Ein weitere Diskussionspunkt in der Sitzung vom 7. März 2013 betrafen Äußerungen, die Nürnberger Staatsanwälte laut Zeit telefonisch getätigt haben sollen. Demnach gestehe man zu, dass das Urteil mit einer gewissen „Schludrigkeit“ zustande gekommen sei. Man betrachte jedoch das Urteil unabhängig der „Flüchtigkeitsfehler“ als „im Ergebnis richtig“. Eine Neuverhandlung auf politischen Druck hin mit Freispruch würde einer Katastrophe für die Bevölkerung gleichkommen, da man mit Mollath dann „einen gefährlichen Mann auf die Straße entlassen“ würde. Die Opposition im Bayerischen Landtag forderte daraufhin, der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg den Fall wegen Befangenheit zu entziehen, was das Bayerische Justizministerium jedoch zurückwies. Die Opposition monierte, dass der Fall einer Staatsanwaltschaft außerhalb des Oberlandesgerichtsbezirks zugeteilt worden war, nun aber doch wieder eine Stelle dort zuständig sei und Generalstaatsanwalt Hasso Nerlich zudem auch 2004 Amtsgerichtspräsident in Nürnberg gewesen und in dieser Funktion für zwei erfolglose Eingaben Mollaths zuständig gewesen sei. Nerlich dementierte daraufhin, dass er oder einer seiner Mitarbeiter die in der Zeit wiedergegebenen Aussagen gemacht hätten. Grüne und FW, die in einem Dringlichkeitsantrag die Ablösung Nerlichs forderten, konnten in der Sitzung nicht die Unterstützung der SPD gewinnen. Der Vorsitzende des Rechtsausschusses, Franz Schindler von der SPD, stellte dabei klar, die Politik über die Zuständigkeit von Staatsanwälten entscheiden zu lassen, käme politischer Justiz gleich.

Further media coverage

{{under construction |comment=Weitere Medienberichterstattung}}

Weitere Medienberichterstattung (German origin)

Click [show] on the right to expand

Die Süddeutsche Zeitung berichtete 2013, Mollath sei zwischen April und Oktober 2006 unter Betreuung gestellt worden. Das Haus seiner Eltern sei im Dezember 2007 für 226.000 Euro unter Wert zwangsversteigert worden. Ersteigert worden sei es von Mollaths geschiedener Frau.

Mitte April 2013 bestätigte Brixner, dass er und der heutige Ehemann von Mollaths früherer Frau, nach Mollaths Angaben zum Zeitpunkt des Prozesses 2006 bereits mit ihr liiert, sich gekannt hatten. Er sei 1980 der Handballtrainer des Bankmanagers gewesen, habe danach keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm gepflegt.

References for validation

Click [show] on the right to expand

Awesome

Thanks Übungsblatt-hakase :3 & 141.22.12.124 :) --92.194.2.225 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"That guy"

You want to translate that German fraud into english. Well go ahead then. The truth about the Hypo Vereinsbank and Hypo Real Estate cannot be disguised for very very long any more. --87.160.225.63 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sampler with further links

- links to early findings of further web research results, the link is leading to a dated version of the de.wikipedia.org article discussion just for the case this article paragraph is missing in one of the later versions

- “Legal Scandal in Germany – Whistleblower Imprisoned in Forensics Since Seven Years” - this link to a text entry in English is quite fresh according to search results showing up, it seems to have been published yesterday (at least, according to a search engine)

- Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), November 27th, 2012, article in German. "Bayerische Staatsregierung reagiert im Fall Mollath", an article by Mike Szymanski and Olaf Przybilla. Translation of the title: "Bavarian government reacts in the Mollath case" (it's not easy to translate the Staatsregierung, because Bavaria is a so-called "Freistaat" ("Free State of Bavaria"), but to be honest, it's just simply a Land, a Bundesland in Germany. So, it's called "Staatsregierung" in the title, but it refers to a "Land" in Germany, not to a state as it would look like if the words would be translated verbatim) - anyway, Mr. Horst Seehofer from the Bavarian CSU (there is only one CSU, the Bavarian, it's a poltical party, conservative) got active in the case. There might be reasons to observe the results attentively and with due scepticism, since Horst Seehofer is famous as one of the formerly very eager defendants of Guttenberg.

- regarding reactions on the political arena: the Bavarian Pirates decided on November 21st, 2012 to vote for a dismissal of the current Justice Minister in Bavaria, Beate Merk: "Die Mitglieder der Piratenpartei Bayern wünschen sich den Rücktritt von Justizministerin Dr. Beate Merk, dies hat eine Befragung der Mitglieder mit Hilfe der Liquid-Democracy-Software PirateFeedback ergeben." - "The members of the Pirate Party Bavaria call for a resignation of the Justice Minister Dr. Beate Merk, this is the result of a survey processed with the Liquid-Democracy-Software PirateFeedback." - "call for"/"wünschen sich" is not easy to translate, since verbatim would be that they "wish" her to step down, but it's actually a call for a resignation. - an early voice who raised attention at the case Mollath in the Pirate Party Bavaria was Patrick Linnert on November, 15th - Germans were commenting the current development since November 23rd with sentences like "Pirates finally woke up, Greens (Green Party in Germany) and SPD are still in snooze modus and the Left (die Linke in Germany) is sleeping the sleep of the just" (links to the proof can be given, it would be some twitter tweets with a number of retweets) - 2 Pirates visited him on Nov 27th, they write about this visit here

- currently [Nov 27th], a certain comment on a regional newspaper website is getting attention online, hinting at the very high probability of this case having a wider range than just Bavaria

- if anyone absolutely needs to see the Springer medium article [in the WELT], then ok, it's this here, nov 26th

- on November 27th, Heribert Prantl writes in the SZ about the implications of the "Paragraph 63" for the German law §63 StGb (StGB stands for "Strafgesetzbuch", the german criminal code)

- telepolis/heise.de on Nov 28th writes that Greens and SPD are blocking the installation of an investigation committee in the Bavarian parliament. The Freie Wähler (a party in Bavaria, "Free Voters") have presented an assessment by a lawyer from Hamburg that is mentioning, that "dass Mollath in seiner Strafanzeige jedoch nicht nur die Namen und Adressen von 39 Zeugen und tatverdächtigen Anlegern nennt. Hinzu kommen Firmennamen und Decknamen von Schwarzgeldkonten." - "that Mollath mentioned in his filed charges not only the names and addresses of 39 witnesses and suspect investors. Moreover, there are names of companies and code names of black money bank accounts." The Freie Wähler want an "Untersuchungsausschuss" [investigation committe], but they need enough voices for that and according to the article, SPD and Greens behave surprising.

- this was published on Nov 22nd - Augsburger Allgemeine - a lawyer is now filing charges, too: a lawyer filed charges in Munich. The lawyer's office confirmed an article in the Suddeutsche Zeitung about that. He filed in the BY prosecution dept. Munich - unlawful detention, groundless suspicion and assumed further illegal activities, charges directed against all personnel involved in this detention case.

- according to the newspaper "tagesspiegel" on Nov 28th 2012, Beate Merk sees even now still no reasons to rethink her position about this detention case

- the guardian reports about the case on November 28th, 2012: German man locked up over HVB bank allegations may have been telling truth. Gustl Mollath was put in a psychiatric unit for claiming his wife was involved in money-laundering at the Bavarian bank. But seven years on evidence has emerged that could set him free - by Kate Connolly

- Nov 29th. 2012 (the day after the HypoVereinsbank raid, see chapter below.) - among many other media reporting today (there is for example a more readable TS/Tagesspiegel article today, can be linked later) - among many others, the Handelsblatt published an article about the case - HypoVereinsbank: „Whistleblower in der Klapse, Bankster unbehelligt“ and there is a Süddeutsche article that will need to be built into the main article, some lines will have to be quoted, since the case develops now. It's this one: Süddeutsche Zeitung: Mollath wäre unter Auflagen zu neuem Gutachten bereit - and there are some news from the Landtag. nordbayern.de, today, according to the page it was published at 3pm CET Fall Mollath: Landtag verlangt Aufklärung (also for the article)

- superfresh right now (nov 30th) - also needed for the article: Süddeutsche Zeitung: Reaktionen auf Fall Mollath - "Herrn Mollath und Frau Merk umgehend entlassen" - a summarize of readers' reactions

and Gustl Mollath - Merk will Fall Mollath komplett neu aufrollen. Gericht überprüft Mollaths Richter (Süddeutsche, also nov 30th) - quoting (on the same day, Freitag, Nov 30th) the following article of the Nürnberger Nachrichten, visible on nordbayern.de, also Nov 30th: Ein Anruf bei Finanzbehörden stoppte brisanten Vorgang - quotation from that one: "Wie Behördenkreise gegenüber unserer Zeitung berichteten, dauerte es keine drei, vier Wochen, bis die Finanzbeamten das mehrseitige Material abhakten und sich nicht mehr weiter damit beschäftigten. Das habe einen besonderen Grund gehabt, sagen intime Kenner dieser Vorgänge. Es habe einen eindeutigen Anruf aus der Justiz gegeben. Der Mann, also Gustl Mollath, sei nicht klar bei Verstand. Man müsse ihn nicht sonderlich ernst nehmen. Und so geschah es auch. ... In den genannten Behördenkreisen wird der heute pensionierte Richter Otto Brixner als jener Anrufer genannt. Er war es, der Gustl Mollath dann zwei Jahre später aufgrund eines entsprechenden Gutachtens in die Psychiatrie einwies, wo der Nürnberger bis heute sitzt. Während der Verhandlung 2006 hatte Brixner dem damaligen Angeklagten Mollath zum Teil lautstark und drohend verboten, sich über die Schwarzgeld-Geschichte weiter auszulassen." - the fact about the loud shouting judge, shouting in the court at Mollath to finally shut up about these black monies, was a topic in a SZ article linked above, too - there are witnesses. And now it is revealed that this judge called the tax authority and advised them not to take Mollath seriously. So, the investigation by the tax authority was closed quickly, too - in 2004. The tax authority is where Mollath's charges landed after they were ignored and laid ad acta by the Bavarian prosecution department in 2003.

(last highlighted media coverage from Nov 30th 2012) from a number of media reports, taking just 2 last ones, (update: ok, 3) to be built into the article: Bayrischer Rundfunk/ARD.de: Fall Gustl Mollath Justizministerin reagiert auf Druck (BR loses contents really quickly, so it will be needed to observe this one and maybe quote and link it when it's clear this one really will be archived) - tagesschau/ARD Bayerns Justizministerin reagiert auf Druck - Fall Mollath wird neu aufgerollt (hm... so far, did not observe links to the tagesschau break, just sometimes the page looks different when you revisit later due to contents, links to further reports added, can be quoted and linked) - and SPIEGEL Fall Gustl Mollath - Gefangen in weiß-blauem Filz (article by Conny Neumann)

--Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

HypoVereinsbank raided on Nov 28th, media reporting on Nov 29th

alright, now the news are rushing in:

- Nov 29th, 2012, 9:15am CET The tagesschau/ARD reports about a "Großrazzia" (big razzia) in the HypoVereinsbank - in the headquarter in Munich and in 12 further buildings.

- Nov 29th, 2012: The SZ article quoted by the tagesschau: SZ: Schlag gegen die HypoVereinsbank

which is also quoted by the SPIEGEL, same day:

- SPIEGEL: Fahnder durchsuchen HypoVereinsbank

plus:

Reuters -- taz -- Frankfurter Rundschau -- derStandard (Austria) -- ... and of course many more.

-

Süddeutsche one day after the media rush re HVB-raid: Nach Razzia bei der Hypo-Vereinsbank: Die Spur führt in die Schweiz (Nov 30th, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Question to wikipedia: does a cathegory "Whistleblower cases" already exist? It should be there, actually. Together with a number of cases that one could think of in this moment. Is there such a cathegory already? If yes, could it be moved there by somebody having the authorization to do that? My trial to find a fitting 3rd cathegory ended up with a bot note in the article history asking whether I am a human being. Think I am, but one that is obviously not yet allowed to click a button but was not informed about that in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahoy User:Zwozwölf1121-3, I just heard about Mollath the first time today from a Facebook posting, and find the situation very interesting. Thank you for putting so much effort into spreading the word to the English wikipedia. You mentioned German wikipedia would autoblock someone if they quoted someone saying "I'll fuck him up"? But there is the situation with the youtube link in the English wikipedia... Have you tried using something like youtu.be? I'm pretty certain an article like this would have been marked for speedy deletion on the German wikipedia before anyone had much chance of filling out the article, so I hope this one will turn into a good one. As for a translation of "Ich mach den fertig", said by somebody in an angry mood, and meaning to neutralize somebody, "I'll fuck his shit up" is a bit too strong, and "I'll mess him up" is maybe a bit weak. 128.237.250.34 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

the link that the bot reverted was a link to a recording from the Bayr. Landtag, Dec 2011. it was there in order to give the source for the time statement in the article sentence. there was and still is no issue with links like that in the German wikipedia, so I was a bit confused when I saw the bot note. yes, let's hope this article can develop further. of course, the other source links will also be format aligned in the next time, as soon as there is some time for it between the news.

but coming back to the youtube question... Germans will start in 2013 to pay 18 EUR per month [currently this is 23 USD p.m.] for the public news network ("Neuer Rundfunkbeitrag"), it will be a payment now regardless of whatever - everybody, meaning now indeed every single household. for some people, this is some money and it still is not absolutely sure whether they will finally have some archive platforms that will make direct linking on pages like wikipedia possible. currently, only some contents land on the "mediathek" (you could translate it as something like "mediadesk") server spaces. lots of contents are sometimes regarded as "news of yesterday, so irrelevant" (an occupational disease in the media, I think). sometimes it is needed to link to an alternative link that has a chance not to turn to a broken link so fast. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gustl-mollath-und-die-hypovereinsbank-weggeraeumt-und-stillgestellt-a-868445.html claims the person who wrote the affidavit was a friend of his ex-wife. The comments in "youtube hbOz5HQWQoM" mention that he is a dentist who was a friend to both of them. 128.237.250.34 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

he is interviewed in the mentioned report mainz (there are two interviews linked in the article, or should be, hope they both still are. one is an interview with Beate Merk, linking to the full version and the 2nd one is to a report about the case itself. the report about the case contains also an interview with the person who signed the affidavit. he is introduced in min. 1:00ff, a friend of the former couple. the affidavit is the topic in min 5:55ff. you will find it when following the link in the External Links section. The quotation itself, for the former wife's sentence referenced in the article (that was quoted in sev. newspapers also), is mentioned in the report in min. 2:40ff. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Article not an orphan anymore

The article is not an orphan anymore, fresh news today about the big raid in 13 buildings of the HypoVereinsbank added here (the HypoVereinsbank article) - (and here's the link to the archive version in case something unexpected happens to the HypoVereinsbank article). Who could delete the orphan article note from the article? Am I allowed to do that or will the bot say no?

He should be also added to this list, but this can be done only by somebody being more experienced with wiki editing than me. No idea how to use the form yet. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scandalous behavior of German WP editors protecting the criminal actions of Beate Merk

Several edits trying to purvey the truth about this f..ing criminal and corrupt bitch were reverted by German WP Gestapo wankers. You are asking for donations for WP, which is protecting this unbearable person? My f..ing ass!!! WP is a useless piece of %§&/%§!!!!

this topic is now, which is definitely a positive development, widely discussed in the media. So of course, there are many sides now, on de.wiki too, interested in beding this topic into their own desired direction. The most sad part currently is, I'd say, the fact that the article seems to repeat the structural motive of the judgment/sentence 2006 - in order to declare charges referring to black money transfers as nebulous talking by a confused person, you need to make him a confused person. Best way to do so is to highlight personal details that are able to distract from topics that might be dangerous for the people involved in those transfers. Only a detailed investigation will be able to show how many persons who were in fact involved in the transfer cases as clients of the former Mrs. Mollath or the cooperating HVB bank personnel were also involved in the case itself. There is for example a Dr. Wörthmüller who was the director of the forensic dept. in a clinic (Europakanal) - 2004 - and whom the court (judge Brixner) ordered an assessment from. Dr. W. takes three long months to finally decide that there is a conflict of interest, a friend of him being a client of the former Mrs. Mollath. You can find these details on the chronology of the supporters web page, here is just a snap shot of a discussion about that, taken in a time when this part of the dicussion was spotted. Since even on the article discussion page of the german wiki deletings were observed for some time, this snapshot was taken.

In general - well... the German wiki is currently known in the press as a page having some difficulties, indeed (see taz1 and taz2 as an example - there is a paywall on the taz page that you can close when you click on "Nein, jetzt nicht"). Not absolutely sure how the current issues can be solved there, but I spotted in the comments under the taz1 article linked above two direct links that make a bit nervious. It seems indeed that the German wiki currently has a tendency to have no issues with developing to a private Genealogy page for the military nobility. And I think the person who wrote the comment is right - t.h.i.s. personnel really does have own servers for detailed Genealogy pages. And the German history has issues enough with installing assumed thousand years old military history, which is probably what the comment "von Cach bis Cäsar - könnte ein paar Server mehr kosten" seems to be hinting at, but it's just how I read it. On the other hand, I have observed articles about (multi-)cultural topics vanishing so fast that you could think the administrators really invented the time machine already. But - it's just a private view, based on what I have observed and read online.

Her name is Merk (not to be confused with Merkel), I typo-edited your paragaph title line now.

--Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Germany has no guaranteed freedom of speech. As we all did in the case of info about China, for example, help spread truth and information without German censorship everyone, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.44.251 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

thats not correct. we do have the 5th article in our GG (Grundgesetz, our german Constitution-Substitute (actually it was supposed to be replaced by a real constitution as soon as germany would have been reunited)), prohibiting censorship. But reality sometimes differs. The main problem here isn't german law (not even german courts, though they do play a role in the case as a whole): its german wikipedia. I've gone through this: there are some serious censors active there, especially left wing activists, so to speak, erasing all the lines they dont like, killing of all accounts that do "promote" unwanted views (I was practically called a nazi (what basically 'allowed' them to strip me of all rights of free speech - just like calling someone a 'communist' in McCarthy's America), because I wanted to clear up the definition of "xenophobie" (xenophobia) for its false derivation!). German Wikipedia is heavily bugged with those fascists! (yes: fascists! - theres no better way to describe those inhumane dishonest violent tactics!)

Btw: the start of this english article does seem a little onesided, too, giving way too much room for the assumption, that mollath was rightefully put into psychiatry...

but the statement "Germany has no guaranteed freedom of speech", is just bullshit! - inform yourself/dont spread lies, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.124.187 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: stop the rumor mill

(re section above here) Please stop the rumor mill, will you? - As far as I can see it, the quarrel on the talk page of de.WP was about violations of de:WP:BIO (WP:BLP) which by policy and for legal reasons warrant immediate deletion without further discussion. Nothing obscure about that. - And one thing more: contributors on de.WP first had to rebut a request for deletion of the article, put a lot of work into it and are now working on the improvement of quality issues. --46.115.87.108 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

the article discussion page will definitely be better off if we keep it to the topic [discussion of the article on en.wiki) - however, just to reply in a few short words - the history of the article on de.wiki began with a fight for its very own existence. As far as I was able to recollect the information, there was a first de. article about Mollath deleted before the current article showed up. The current article again also quickly received a deletion request. The person requesting deletion was not a registered user [request by an IP], the first reason mentioned was breach of privacy rights. This was quickly proven as wrong given the media coverage and the simple fact that Mollath is turning to the public himself incl. the disclosure of legal documents involved. However - the discussion about the deletion was still not stopped then - some wiki users then jumped in, claiming that the article/case is not relevant or that, since it is dealing with reactions by B. Merk, should not be on wikipedia because "wikipedia is not a place to fight political fights". There was a large majority of other users demanding the article to be kept and demanding an end of this discussion which they perceived as (quotation) "embarassing for wikipedia", so finally the deletion discussion [re the entire article...] was stopped. (The link to this deleting discussion should still be placed on de.wiki, on the article discussion page there, so you can freely check these statements.) Deletings on the article discussion page, on the other hand, included also links, like e.g. links to articles written by members of the Pirate party who started to care for this case from Nov 15th on.

Deletion of links to Pirate blogs: a case of "WP:BIO"? - Hardly. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case. Terrible article full of bias and poor language that reads like a conspiracy activist homepage. To wit, there sure seems to be a scandal here... but wiki isn't the place to fight that battle. I have rewritten it for a neutral point of view and removed all the original research and off-tangents. In particular, this article isn't about Ms. Merk. Remember, wiki policy is to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage. Original research is against wiki policy. 80.187.103.29 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your rewrite. Now enWp has a much better article then deWP has.

(Since this is a complete rewrite, the older history may be cutted off.) --Itu (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Cutting off history...". Thanks for reminding me, it's a long time since I read that book. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources and references for the paragraph "Turn in News", sentence starts with "The so-called "turn in news" is however..."

B. Lakotta replies to critical voices http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/fall-gustl-mollath-beate-lakotta-ueber-die-zweifel-an-der-opferrolle-a-873836.html

She responded to: http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/fall-mollath-alles-nur-heise-luft.html

http://blog.delegibus.com/2012/12/14/fall-mollath-wenn-die-welle-des-journalismus-bricht/

Her article was also critisized in http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/153373

Her reply to the 4 parts written by the retired chief prosecutor is awaited.

internet-law replied to her reply on http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/spiegel-autorin-antwortet-auf-meinen-blogbeitrag-zum-fall-mollath.html

there is also carta.info: http://carta.info/51989/gustl-for-help-darf-man-den-fall-mollath-allein-der-justiz-uberlassen/

In the meantime, many media proceed with reporting, not really provoking readers to see a "turn" on the media landscape.

Like, for example http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38228/1.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/chronologie-zum-fall-mollath-schwierige-suche-nach-der-wahrheit-1.1542305

And others.

Asking for the clarification what the actual role of the following person is

Please see here - what actual role does this person have? I see vanishing information. --Guestreader (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of missing information in the article

Aside of the fact above, there are further - many - missing informations in this article... - I was not able to compare older versions if it always looked like this, but if you ask me: currently, this article resembles more a Swiss Cheese than a text. More missing (swiss cheese holes) than information.

Btw another one [of many] missing references:

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2012/12/03/la-banque-allemande-hypovereinsbank-soupconnee-de-fraude-fiscale_1799066_3234.html --Guestreader (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The complete German article is also a swiss cheese but it looks like a perfect article.--84.159.243.167 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

20. and 22.12 SZ

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/verteidiger-im-wiederaufnahmeverfahren-rechtsanwalt-strate-vertritt-gustl-mollath-1.1555167 (another quote that is missing in the article although somebody already wrote an article sentence about it.)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/psychiater-im-fall-mollath-gutachten-aus-der-ferne-1.1557448 Title: "Gutachten aus der Ferne" (Przybilla vs. Lakotta) --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Turn in news reporting

What is this section all about? Fringe press comments, guessing, sensationalist news coverage, spindoctoring, background analysis - or what? And did that have any impact on public opinion or brought important developments to the case itself? - No test editing in articles, please (use your WP:sandbox instead). --46.115.53.63 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

2 major german newspapersarticles =/= "Fringe press comments".

Semi-protection now recommended, that may help to keep the conspiracybelievers with their "public opinion" away. --Itu (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Just could not make any sense at all of what this section says or wants to say. It's as simple as this, and that's all there is. Nothing about your (the editor's) intentions. So please clarify your information, provide good sources, and please don't misuse edit summaries for personal attacks. Maybe it came from heat and fervour, but it's not the polite way and it is against the rules. --46.115.53.63 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly IS the information?? - And I must say, after these reverts, calling me names and all the rest: That is NOT the way things ar done here, Herr Itu! --46.115.53.63 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Some home truth ...

There is some hidden text in the sourcecode of the article <!-- please improve style as needed -->. Absolutely no need for a thing like that. Usually the spirit of the english WP is cooperative and always WP:AGF. So nobody who can provide any important and meaningful information will be bullied away just like that (WP:BITE). And the working atmosphere is friendly and wellcoming. That is the advantage of people of a world language who are used to listen to people from everywhere around the world. (That fellow Albert Einstein had quite a heavy accent, didn't he?) There are lots of templates available for piecemeal improvements, like Template:Copy edit for this instance (and nothing to be ashamed for that).

When I started here, I was always very pleased to see someone else ironing out my minor glitches of style, spelling or whatever might have been the case. And when looking at it, I saw that my contributions and my expertise were well received, appreciated, and I saw it as a compliment. The english WP had formed me then and was my home base.

Now things have changed. I'd tried for some time during the recent days to instill that same good spirit to the german WP as well, but to no avail. They are too stubborn, too single-minded and basically too cynical. And I can't take that. It all ends up in quite a useless waste of time and effort.

This onesided attempt of a dialogue (right above here) was kind of a scientific experiment, that proves me right to quit WP for good. - Before, I had some hopes left, but the outcome is unambiguous, the evidence is irrefutable. --46.115.55.196 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

Bias of Der Spiegel, Tagesspiegel and Die Zeit:

• Strate vertritt Gustl Mollath, Süddeutsche Zeitung (20 Dezember 2012)
• Star-Anwalt Strate vertritt Gustl Mollath, Hamburger Abendblatt (20 Dezember 2012)
• and Wikipedia articles Litigation-PR and Astroturfing.

Die Zeit says Mollath wants to remain a heroic martyr of justice and dismissed Gerhard Strate right away. Both of them say that this is either a misstatement or a blatant lie. Mollath only wanted to speak with his longterm lawyer first, as a matter of honesty and gratitude. - Strate and Mollath both say so, "major newspaper" Die Zeit says the other. To make this perfectly clear: Mollath signed with Strate even before the article from Die Zeit was published. - Now, whom do you trust? And is this the kind of information that should go into WP without any caveat lector whatsoever? --176.7.43.172 (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

POV additions

User:Hans Haase, you are well known as the main author of the corresponding German article, and you are well known to have a completely biased view of the matter, the same as reflected in your German article. Please don't do the same with this article, which is already POV enough by calling Mollath a "whistleblower" (in fact, all that can be said objectively is that he is a psychiatric patient whose case is debated in the media, mainly in a political way). The sections you inserted share that bias by omitting important facts. For example, you don't mention a lawsuit which decided that it was illegal to fire Mollath's wife. --rtc (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No way! Mollath's wife was sacked within the affair. She was a part of unfaithful operations against the bank. Within the affair 3 laws were violated and the bank's internal work policies hurt. She was affected in the affair is known, only. There's no closer role known. But she has transfered money several times. When Mollath knows and named secret accounts, also collected receipts as well, these accounts have been opened. Where the money came from is no single word about.

The „false friend“ word „Whistleblower“ has a nearly different few in Germany where whistleblowing is poor covered by law due lobbyism. The result is death end of the whistleblower's career. Mollath's business did not achieve earnings covering the expenses. He was supported by his wife. So her income covered the expenses. --Hans Haase (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This lawsuit of Mollath's wife was against to fire her instantly, but her job ended. In Germany compensation payment for work over many years is not ununsual and enforcing a compensation by lawsuit is successful often. --Hans Haase (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your answer again confirms how obvious your bias really is. Please stay away from the article. Your edits are in conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Thanks. --rtc (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are seizing the article only. You have removed facts like the primary source: The bank's review report no. 20546 as the very best document of the references. Simply this move shows your target of contribution. --Hans Haase (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Except for some narrow exceptions (which do not apply here), primary source material must not be used. It constitutes original research and is prone to synthesis, see also WP:PRIMARY. Further, this specific material is in conflict with the requirement that sources must be reliable, which internal company reports do not qualify as. --rtc (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Special Audit Report No. 20546 (de: "Sonderrevisionsbericht No. 20546") has been published by the TV Magainz Report Mainz on Germany Southwest Broadcast Südwestrundfunk (SWR) on their webpage together with the copy of the magazine's report video. This is a valid source. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (WP:PRIMARY) --rtc (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I refered a SECONDARY source. The Bank has created the report an gave it to the people from the TV magazine. So they have reviewed it by their TV report in the magazine and pubished it. This is not a blog. This is the Broadcast stations website. So we have a 2nd source: created by one and reviewed by others who did research in the case. The researchers have published it. So we meet the WP policies.

The WP:BLP is also not affected. Everything can be found in the newspapers. Mollath himself talks to the public to have them know the case and his situation. Simply read the German artice with a translator e.g. google. And if you don't trust, read the references with the translator. The German article is blocked for 2 weeks due WP:WAR. We have some lobbyism or involved editors who do not contribute, but just delete. I am not focusing on a special issue or point of view. I am just collecting the information in the article. Hans Haase (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You cite a primary source (an internal report of some bank) and draw your own conclusions from it. This is in conflict with WP:PRIMARY. It is completely irrelevant who leaked it and what website you took it from. The same is true for the fact that a TV magazine reviewed it before leaking it. That doesn't transform a primary into a secondary source. It would be okay to describe and cite the TV magazine's review. Do not make your own judgement on the primary source. I have been explaining this to you for weeks and can only suppose that you ignore it on purpose. The German Wiki article is blocked because you are edit-warring in quite the same manner as here. You fail to recognize Wikipedia's principles and policies, which state clearly that you possess no ownership of articles that you once created. --rtc (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I took the emergncy brake, too. So what would you do to come up with this information? The document is all but not wrong. I provides trustable information. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All has been said, no need to repeat. Comply with the policies, let other users edit, abstain from editwarring. --rtc (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

[1] There are no shortage of newspaper sources on this fellow, there are no need to use primary sources nor opinion pieces like blogs. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What kind of show you are putting on here. Everybody knows who user rtc really is and for whom he does work and is also paid. The case of Gustl Mollath is just the Top of the Iceberg belonging unbelievable things which have to do with far more than only plain whistleblowing. Everybody with an awakened mind is capable to see that in the argumentation of user rtc something big big big is lerking in the cupboards. So anyhow I am writing this down because they did try doing something like this with me as well. And it also happened in the so called BRD GmbH still beeing owned by France, America, Russia and England. And I sign with an open IP so that everybody is capable to see from which exact area that does come from. User rtc is only here for avoiding to get the article in a direction which is not wanted. It's not conspiracy or supremacy but he is one of the tools for the well prepared plan of a New World Order.--84.159.235.154 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha --DrLee (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhh a funny guy wanna take the mickey out of me. Very very funny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect --87.156.86.207 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Martha Mitchell effect

http://blacklistedwikii.e/index.php/Gustl_Mollath

I really think that it is necessary that the truth will arise on the horizon. But this truth does hurt.--87.156.89.58 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is close to WP:TF. First the Martha Mitchell effect in German popular knowledge is not very common. It may have occured cause the forensic psychiatrists had no or no official knowledge in Mollaths talk about money shifts was true. One of the psychiatrists denied to investigate Mollath and declared himself for biased. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you really mean targeted flagging. English for de:WP:TF is WP:OR. Hans Adler 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath speaks and writes on his behalf

2011-12-20

Gustl Ferdinand Mollath Zur Zeit gegen meinen Willen im BKH Bayreuth, Nordring 2, 95445 Bayreuth

Zu Behauptungen von:

   * Frau Staatsministerin Dr. Beate Merk (CSU)
   * Herrn Abgeordneten im Bayer. Landtag Jürgen Heike (CSU)

   z. T. wiedergegeben in der Süddeutschen Zeitung

Richtigstellung:

1. Ich habe immer bestritten meine Frau mißhandelt zu haben.

2. In der Verhandlung am 08.08.2006, die zu meinem Freispruch führte, habe ich gesagt, daß ich mich gegen Angriffe meiner Frau gewehrt habe. Das heißt, ich habe mich vor Angriffen meiner Frau geschützt!

3. Auch eine Geiselnahme hat nie stattgefunden!

4. Warum hatte die Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg-Fürth die angeblichen Mißhandlungen erst mit einem Strafbefehl nicht höher als 1.000,– € ahnden wollen, um somit keine Klage vor Gericht erheben zu müssen? Als ich diesen Strafbefehl bekam, war ich entsetzt. Hätte ich den bezahlt, wäre es zwar zu keiner Gerichtsverhandlung gekommen, aber ich hätte wohl zugegeben, was ich gar nicht getan hatte! So bezahlte ich nicht. Daher kam es zu dem Gerichtsverfahren.

5. Meine Frau behauptete in ihrer Anzeige ich hätte Schußwaffen, obwohl ich nie welche hatte! Dazu gab es, ohne Vorwarnung, eine Hausdurchsuchung, im Februar 2003. Zwölf Polizeibeamte wühlten, von früh bis zum Nachmittag alles durcheinander. Selbst Wandverkleidungen wurden herausgerissen. Gefunden wurde nichts! Trotzdem blieb meine Frau glaubwürdig.

6. Die Anzeige machte meine damalige Ehefrau, zusammen mit ihrem Liebhaber, Herrn Martin Maske,[1] damals Direktor der Hypo Real Estate (HRE) bei den Justizbehörden in Berlin. Die HRE ist eine Abspaltung des Immobiliengeschäfts der HypoVereinsbank. Sie ist bis heute ein Finanzierer großer, auch staatlicher Bauprojekte.

7. Meine frühere Ehefrau Petra Mollath hat nach meiner Inhaftierung Herrn Martin Maske geheiratet und heißt nun Petra Maske.

8. Mir ist nichts geblieben! Nicht einmal die persönlichste Habe. Nicht einmal ein Bild meiner Mutter hat man mir gelassen.

In bald sechs Jahren Haft in diesen angeblichen Krankenhäusern habe ich Viele kennen gelernt:

   * Mehrfachmörder
   * Kinderschänder
   * Kindermörder
   * Betrüger
   * Drogenhändler
   * selbst einen Nekrophilen (mißbraucht Leichen) mußte ich ertragen.

In sechs Jahren hab ich Keinen kennen gelernt, dem gar nichts blieb!

9. Um Aufklären zu können, wo meine Habe blieb, wandte ich mich mehrfach an den damaligen Innenminister Dr. Beckstein (CSU). Dieser antwortete nie. Ich bat den damaligen Landtagspräsidenten Alois Glück um Hilfe. Der gab die Sache an den Landtag weiter. Erst dann gab die Polizei, unter Dr. Beckstein, einige wenige Auskünfte.

10. Es deutet alles darauf hin, daß meine – dann schon lange von mir geschiedene Frau – illegal durch die Polizei geduldet, Zutritt zu meinem Haus erhielt und nicht nur weitere Beweise zu ihren strafbaren Tätigkeiten vernichtet hat, sondern gleich meine gänzliche Habe!

Alle meine Bitten um Hilfe, alle Anzeigen dazu, werden abgelehnt und eingestellt.

So ist nicht nur meine Gegenwart und Zukunft vernichtet, sondern auch meine Vergangenheit. Schlimmer noch, ich werde zu einem wahnsinnigen Monster gemacht.

Ich bitte um Unterstützung zu einem rechtsstaatlichen Wiederaufnahmeverfahren, wo die ganze Wahrheit an eine breite Öffentlichkeit kommt und am Ende ein objektives und gerechtes Urteil steht.

Vielen Dank.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

gez. Gustl Ferdinand Mollath

Quelle: http://www.gustl-for-help.de/gegendarstellung.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.243.68 (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC) --84.159.243.68 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mollath a different way

http://www.blacklisteddatde-wp.de/index.php/Gustl_Mollath

Perhaps some people want to read something different about Mollath. Here you go. --87.156.86.199 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably this is why your non-notable link is not listed in de-wikipedia, where you are banned indef. --Izadso (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

and once again for Manfred: here you go and secondary your one-man-show-wiki is no source at all . Read it carefully. --Izadso (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Manfred Riebe wants his own wiki linked here. FYI: His site is on the spam-blacklist on de-wikipedia since october 2010 here. He is blocked indef in de-wiki. On his talkpage he does not respond, so I delete this link one more time. Next time I will report this as vandalism. --Izadso (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever serves you best.--84.159.243.167 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:SPS, givin the case of Mollath a closer look, there's much false information. But, until Mollath the been released, there was a delay from 2012 to 2013. Within this time another illegal performed handling of baverian justice expired its statute of limitations. Mollath had lost his home. Germany is known for paying low, late or no indemnities. Mollath's indemnity might not cover his real losts and burden. Here's no real and verifyable information about due the Germany understanding of privacy. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Another person whos name was hidden in the news, declared to be sued for €250,000 due a ciation of one of Mollath writing. This understanding of privacy excluded the sued person from being listed the article. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gustl Mollath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130619170908/http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/kultur/index.jsp?rubrik=5676&key=standard_document_48342409 to http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/kultur/index.jsp?rubrik=5676&key=standard_document_48342409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411012005/http://www.gustl-for-help.de/download/2003-2005-Mollath-Dokumente.pdf to http://www.gustl-for-help.de/download/2003-2005-Mollath-Dokumente.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310070043/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-generalstaatsanwalt-nuernberg-100.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-generalstaatsanwalt-nuernberg-100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102214336/http://www.br.de/franken/inhalt/aktuelles-aus-franken/gustl-mollath-vorwuerfe-100.html to http://www.br.de/franken/inhalt/aktuelles-aus-franken/gustl-mollath-vorwuerfe-100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118030337/http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/kontrovers/121114-kontrovers-mollath-100.html to http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/kontrovers/121114-kontrovers-mollath-100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516123256/http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/abendschau/justiz-mollath-pschiatrie-100.html to http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/abendschau/justiz-mollath-pschiatrie-100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202034045/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/gustl-mollath-justizministerium-102.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/gustl-mollath-justizministerium-102.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130002137/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-vorwuerfe-staatsanwaltschaft-100.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-vorwuerfe-staatsanwaltschaft-100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A vision for dealing with this topic

I'm a German but have my wiki-home here at the English Wikipedia. (27,000 edits since 2007; just back from a 4-year wiki break; never ran for admin because I didn't want confusing extra buttons – if I need an admin job done, I know how to ask). I am familiar enough with the German Wikipedia to know that there are significant cultural differences.

I also followed the Mollath affair very closely from when it first became publicly known until a year or so after Gustl Mollath was released. (Obviously there wasn't much public information at that point.) Of course I did not root for Otto Brixner. However, due to my (at least attempted) practice of WP:WFE on contentious articles, it may feel that way to some of you if/when this voice is otherwise underrepresented.

I can see that there is a lot of drama around this topic at the German Wikipedia. I would like to help that we don't get the same situation here.

Some things from the top of my head that will almost certainly be relevant and may be surprising to editors coming from the German Wikipedia:

• It is not customary here to do large amounts of content work on the talk page. Especially for the biography of a living person this is highly problematic because it makes any violations of our WP:BLP policy very easy to find from the subject's article. The alternative is for one editor to make a subpage in their user space and invite the others to cooperate there.
• If a person is notable only for one event, it is customary here to name and organise the article after the event, not the person. See WP:BLP1E. In the case of Gustl Mollath this rises the question whether this never-ending affair (as it felt at the time) should be considered a single event. I admit it may be a borderline case, but I tend towards thinking it is.
• Much more clearly, the subject of the related article Otto Brixner does not seem to satisfy our general notability guideline WP:N. He certainly does not satisfy WP:JUDGE, and the only thing he is notable for is having convicted Gustl Mollath. This makes him a case of WP:BLP1E. In his case, we can see why this rule exists: Either we write excessive details about his career unrelated to the Mollath affair, possibly hard to source but in any case not very interesting to anyone. Or we don't, and the Mollath affair gets excessive weight in his biography.
• The German articles already contain a lot of detail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every scrap of information that has been published anywhwere. I don't think it is excessive as it is right now, but it really shouldn't be much more. For English speakers the entire topic is generally of less interest, so they will be better served with a shorter account that people will actually read.
• For the reasons stated, I think it would be best to merge the two articles Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner into a single article entitled "Gustl Mollath affair" or similar. This will also reduce the danger of anyone being accused of libeling Brixner – hopefully without having to tone things down unreasonably.
• If things should go seriously wrong during work on this topic, please note that on the English Wikipedia, blocks are intended for persons, not accounts. If your account is blocked, you are not allowed to create a new one or edit while logged out, and if you already have a second account, you are not allowed to use it even for the most innocuous and uncontroversial edits. Let's hope that this will not become relevant, although given the topic this will probably require a lot of restraint from everyone.

I am prepared to help with getting a good and stable article (or articles) into the English Wikipedia, and to hopefully get it to Good Article status (see WP:GA). Here is why I think that's a good goal:

• I think this is an interesting topic that deserves to be more widely known.
• The goal of Good Article status tends to mitigate conflicts a little bit because both sides are part of a team that fights against the intricacies of the Good Article process.
• The GA version is usually one that both sides are proud of. In case conflicts flare up later, it is a good version to revert back to while sorting things out.

OK, this was a big wall of text and probably quite unexpected. Now I'll try to shut up for a while to see what happens and give everyone a chance to be heard in this section. Hans Adler 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: thx for your commitment in this case. I fully agree to your suggestion. I think it will be important -as has been pointed out at deWP several times- to note, that it wasn't Brixner who sentenced Mollath buth a chamber of at least 4 judges. Brixner was only presiding this chamber but wasn't even the rapporteur who drafts the verdict. Anyway I think that the suggested article Gustl Mollath affair or something like that would be the best solution. Since I have not had any experience with the English language for years I do not feel capable to write such an article für enWP but I could give some advice and hints. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)