What was originally staged as a spectacular liberation strike by then-Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) against alleged “right-wing terrorism” is turning into a constitutional fiasco after more than two years of main proceedings. In a trenchant analysis for Die Welt, the doyenne of German court reporting, Gisela Friedrichsen, draws a damning conclusion: in the trial against Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss and his co-defendants, “something is wrong.” A new 114-page detention order issued by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt now openly reveals what the judiciary is truly pursuing: the criminalization of mere thoughts, tavern chatter, and unreal systemic critiques—entirely detached from any tangible danger.
The 114-Page Manifesto of Mindset Justice
Pensioners, former military personnel, and a former judge have now spent over three and a half years in pre-trial detention. The reason for this unprecedented severity is not the discovery of an armed commando unit shortly before an strike, but rather the unyielding determination of the judiciary to maintain the politically demanded narrative of an “existential threat” at all costs.
As Friedrichsen exposes, the Senate under Presiding Judge Jürgen Bonk cemented the continuation of Prince Reuss’s detention in a 114-page ruling shortly before the end of the summer recess. The document reads like a blueprint for a pre-determined verdict:
The Senate simply declares the actual prospect of success of an alleged storming of the Bundestag to be legally irrelevant.
“A prerequisite for assuming a corresponding degree of dangerousness is not a sufficient prospect of success for the intended storming of the Bundestag. Rather, it is sufficient if it can seriously be expected that, in the event of the implementation of the association’s plans, catalog offenses [such as murder or manslaughter] might be committed.”
— From the detention continuation order of the OLG Frankfurt (Case No. 8 St 2/23)
With this, the masquerade is over: it is not actions or concrete operative preparations that are on trial, but the questioning of the state order itself.
The State’s Weapon: How the Anti-RAF Section 129a is Reinterpreted
The legal mechanics behind this approach are as simple as they are dangerous. The Federal Prosecutor General is utilizing Sections 129 and 129a of the German Criminal Code (StGB). These statutes were created exactly 50 years ago to apprehend the logistical supporters of the Red Army Faction (RAF) terrorist organization—individuals who procured weapons, money, or safehouses.
In the Reuss complex, lead prosecutor Tobias Engelstätter—who profiled himself academically in 2022 with a publication on the “Delegitimization of the State through Conspiracy Myths”—and the OLG Frankfurt are applying this toolkit as a preventive weapon against dissidents.
The Decoupling of Criminal Liability from Reality:
- Pipe Dreams Rendered Crimes: Whether accused retired Colonel Max Eder believed politicians could be “called to account” over alleged involvement in subterranean pedophile rings, or whether fraudsters promised the defendants an imaginary “Alliance” of 1 million foreign soldiers: the Senate subsumes such bizarre delusions under the elastic term of an “abstract endangerment offense.”
- Exoneration Inverted into Incrimination: When Prince Reuss explicitly clarified at a meeting: “There will be no coup with me!”, the court turned this against him. The judges’ logic: anyone who says they do not want a coup proves that a coup was discussed.
- Mountains of Files as a Strategy of Attrition: For two years, the court has been reading gigabytes of data retrieved from computers and digital recycle bins. Every tiny mosaic tile is turned over to conceal the lack of concrete evidence under a sheer mass of irrelevant chat logs.
Reality Check: The “Terror Network” in Overview
| Allegation by Federal Prosecutor | Uncovered Reality in Evidence | Legal Assessment by OLG Frankfurt |
| Armed Storming of the Bundestag | A few ex-military personnel toured the building as regular visitors; contacted comrades declined (“absurdity”). | Irrelevant: Prospect of success is legally immaterial for liability (§ 129a). |
| Shadow Cabinet / “Council” | Non-binding idle talk and names written on slips of paper over dinner and wine. | Assessed as serious preparation of a transition government. |
| Endangering State Order | Group ultimately relied on scammers and an imaginary foreign “Alliance.” | Even belief in imaginary Alliances constitutes an abstract endangerment offense. |
Conclusion: When the Judiciary Becomes a Tool of Politics
Gisela Friedrichsen’s assessment exposes the true nature of this trial: it is a political example. The proceedings were intended to serve as a “spectacular omen in the crusade against the right” by then-Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD).
When mere conversations about systemic alternatives, paired with bizarre esoteric or conspiracy theories without any operational feasibility, suffice to lock people away in pre-trial detention for years and threaten long prison terms, the constitutional state has crossed the line into mindset justice (Gesinnungsjustiz).
The Reuss trial will not go down in history as a triumph over terrorism, but as a monument to how a state instrumentalizes penal law to administratively stifle political dissent and non-conformity.