The neighbor who owns the garage comes out of his house and spontaneously says to me as soon as he understands the situation: “Is Loïc okay? Would you like a glass of water ? ». This remark was a bright spot in the seriousness and heaviness of the arrest. I did my best to suppress a laugh and refused the glass of water as my hands were tied. Back at my parents’ house, to put my shoes on, I can not tie my shoelaces and ask the gendarmes to take off my handcuffs: “No, you can do it like that,” replies one. I’ve always liked challenges, so I try, but with the hands tied behind my back and even a lot of goodwill, it’s just not doable. The gendarmes laugh and make fun of me. My little sister is right next to it with the seriousness of mixed emotions like I’ve never seen on her face, her look is powerful. She spontaneously shouts to the gendarmes a strong: “Take the handcuffs off of him so he can put his shoes on”. There is a divine power in her voice, the mockery of the cops turns into embarrassment. I saw the gendarmes’ looks lose themselves on the ground and one of them was ready to take my chains off. If my little sister had said “Take the chains off him and let him go free!” Then the gendarmes might have left and I could have hugged my little sister for a moment. Because what came then was 1 year and 4 months imprisonment, 1 year and 4 months, where the guards even prevent hugs in the visitor room.

When I arrived to the prison in France, a 2 meter tall guard said to me, “If you burn down my car, I’ll cut you in two.” Between the police officer who is ready to shoot me and the guard who tries to cut me in half, I think I prefer to be shot at than to end up in two pieces. But what is disturbing, besides the threat of death, is that this guard thinks I burned a car; At that moment I realize that the upcoming trial is a huge delusion. By blaming someone for all of the violence that can occur during a demonstration, you create confusion in the simple lines of thought of guards and police officers. By making a disproportionate charge you are causing disproportionate treatment.

This guard barks at a dubious speed: “It’s no use what you’ve done, now look where you end up, where are they, your friends? You are here now…” I make it clear to him that he is also here, but he says the following:” … you are alone, you have failed in your life. You have not changed anything and you are good-for-nothing. Etc.“ I don’t even get a chance to say anything or to communicate, he cuts me off. He doesn’t really feel what he’s saying though. I have the feeling that his job is to demoralize me. In the following, I will be searched naked when I arrive at the prison, and again when I leave the prison to go to the court to decide on the legality of the arrest warrant. I am being relocated by ERIS. The ERIS are monsters, masked and equipped with machine guns. It is 8 of them in 2 off-road vehicles, shielded by darkened windows. Arriving at the Nancy Court of Appeal, after tying my hands and feet, a member of the ERIS tries to gain a victory on the wide field of ideas, saying: “Do you know that you cost a lot of money?”. I answer him: “Do you know that 40 million euros are pumped into Meuse every year to get approval for the project to build a nuclear waste dump in Bure? He: “What do you want me to do about it?”. Me: “Oh nothing, I just wanted to make clear what costs a lot of money.”
End of the dialogue.
During the hearing, I approach the judge with two masked ERIS officers, one to my right and one to my left. The situation is completely surreal, I am tied up. My family and friends are there to support me. My older brother, the pastor, throws me a small piece of paper with a few words of encouragement. I catch it despite the handcuffs, but one of the ERIS officers throws me to the ground. The judges withdraw immediately and my brother has to leave the room. Although I’m still on the ground, I try to hold the paper in my hand with all my force. The officer then puts pressure on my neck, and I cry in pain and let go. The hearing continues. The indictment is translated in a way that it sounds like I personally burned 19 cars and injured one person in a building.
In this French prison I found myself stuck in the arrival block for 1 month while waiting to be transferred to Germany. I was traumatized by the fact that every two hours, even in the middle of the night, a guard came by to make sure that I was still alive by making a lot of noise pushing the latch on the door aside before turning on the light. I’ve never been able to sleep more than two hours straight. I had the opportunity to meet a trash collector with Romanian roots. His crime was not to have reported how much money he had made, picking up items he found on the street. He had been imprisoned for four months for a state tax loss of € 400. There is tax evasion, tax havens, money laundering, the “Panama Papers”,the Luxleaks. Billions and billions of euros disappear between the hands of the rich. But I haven’t seen any rich people or bankers in prison, not everyone has the means to escape in a suitcase. The 500 richest people in France have tripled their wealth since the financial crisis of 2008, reaching 650 billion euros.
Equality means the possibility of using the same material capacities. A cleaning lady cannot live in an Elbchaussee villa. And the current progressive gentrification in Hamburg will not make things more equal. Inequalities are opening up. The young Italian Fabio, a former G20 prisoner in Hamburg, had declared in court (in 2017) that the 85 richest people in the world have the same wealth as 50% of the poorest population. The situation has deteriorated since then. A call by the yellow vests in January 2019 specified that in future there would be 26 billionaires who own as much as half of humanity. What one can learn from the judicial institution is that it is immoral not to pay one’s taxes when one is poor, but acceptable if the wealthy class can afford it. This is called class-based justice. I did not find anything in their institutions that could beautify the human soul, everything spoils it.
Here is a quote from Foucault:
“Illegalism of goods is separated from that of rights. A division that re-establishes a confrontation between the classes, for on the one hand the illegalism most accessible to the working classes is that of the goods – the violent transfer of property; and on the other hand, the upper middle class claims, for themselves, the illegalism of rights: the possibility of adjusting their own rules and laws; to secure an enormous sector of the economic cycle through a game that is within the framework of the law – by standing still within the framework provided, or by tolerating facts. And this great redistribution of illegalism can even be seen in a speciality of the justice cycle: for the illegalism of goods – for theft – the ordinary courts and punishment; for the illegalism of rights – fraud, tax evasion, irregular commercial operations – the special jurisdiction with transactions, amicable settlement, reduction of fines, etc. The upper middle class claims the creative domain of illegalism of rights for itself. ”
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish, p. 172, French edition (loosely translated)

When I was transferred to Hamburg in a German police car, the driver turned on the music and turned up the volume, playing “the internationale”. The officers of the “Soko SchwarzBlock” [special commission BlackBlock] certainly wanted to see my reaction. I couldn’t stop myself to tell them that I preferred “Maknovtchina”. I found it interesting to talk with police officer about permaculture, even though she tried to ask me questions, whether I would have gone to the G20 and what I might have done there. I think I eventually got her interested in vegetables. When I arrived in Hamburg, I was taken to the UHA detention center with another truck and other police officers. We stopped several times that evening, at which several other people arrested for various reasons came to my small cell. There are no seat belts, so you bump against the wall from time to time. The four of us were jammed together and two men were completely drunk. One of them knocked on the wall several times to ask if he could go to the toilet, even when there was a stop to take another arrested person to the second cell, they didn’t let him go. He couldn’t hold back any longer and peed on the floor. So I balanced on the bench with my two feet up, someone else tried the same tactic. The one who peed and the last one who was also full seemed unaware of the situation and left their shoes on the floor. The pee followed the movements of the truck and finally extended over the entire surface and few times run through the door behind which my belongings from the prison in France were. Part of a cardboard box absorbed a little urine, but it was a guard who transported it without realizing it. In a way, it can be said that there was justice here. Because to prevent someone from peeing is not a good idea.
After a few days of being observed in a cell where the lights were always on, I became aware of the ritual of the guard who looked inside every two hours. The advantage is that there was no bolt to move here, as the door had a small viewing window. In a small cell where nothing happened, I saw the face of a guard for a few seconds every 2 hours. If I put myself in the shoes of the guard who looks at every prisoner for a moment, I think that in the face of so much misery, I would melt into tears. I think most guards learn to run out of emotions. They are almost like machines or robots. And I also think that the majority does not dream of practicing this profession, but that the choice of becoming a guard is often based on a lack of other obvious alternatives. I say the obvious alternative because there are many career outlooks in the collective of farmers or vegetable growers. To sow seeds, or to sow despair in the hearts of those one imprisoned. As long as this planet has not completely gone down the drain, in my opinion we have a choice. For the first four months, I stayed in the small building A, which is parallel to the judicial building we are currently in. In my testimony about leaving the prison, I also speak of this building in the text: “Tear down the walls of the prison that separates the area from the outside world” [https://unitedwestand.blackblogs.org/die-mauern-niederreissen-die-den-knast-von-der-aussenwelt-trennen/]
I will include some passages:
This building is intended for the newcomers. There you have to stay in the cell for 23 hours / 24, 7 days out of 7. It’s a dark environment in which the prisoners collapse, scream or hit the walls. I stayed there for 4 months. For the first month I only had the clothes I was wearing when I arrived. Impossible to get my things back, which had arrived at the same time as me.
In this building you can shower together twice a week at 6.45 a.m. So I washed my underpants, then put my pants back on without them, because they first had to be dried under the fan in my cell. In this building, the guards yell at you and push you if you cross the invisible line between your cell and the hallway where the food is served. The only moment you can take a deep breath, in a cell less than two meters wide and four meters long, is the one hour of going out a day.
In this building there are mainly foreigners whose crime it is not to have papers during an inspection, small dealers or accused of theft. I have seen the guards’ hateful looks that remained long on the of racism affected prisoners. The majority of foreigners I met in this building defined the guards as Nazis. It seems strange to hear this nowadays, knowing that the Nazis killed several hundred people in this very prison less than a century ago. After a month of waiting, I was finally able to get my replacement clothes. With over a dozen underpants and knowing that the other prisoners only had one, I began distributing them during the one-hour exit. My family sent me about 50 pairs of underpants. It gave me a lot of strength to be able to help the other people in the prison with this distribution. This sentence was written with a pen on the wall of a cell: “If you help others, you help yourself.” It was in this building A, that I was placed in solitary confinement for the first time when a guard surprised me while I was giving bread to the pigeons on my window. I didn’t understand anything about what he said to me when I entered my cell, and only when I left the isolation cell after 1 hour I received a small piece of paper disguised as a declaration on which he had written in French: “Do not feed birds.”
After 4 months in Building A, I was able to move to another building that had more hours a day with an open cell. A prisoner had bought the board game “Risk”, but since this game could not be played with more than 6 players and there were 12 of us on the floor, I began to make expansion cards from the Kellogs boxes that the other prisoners could buy. I crafted figures from flour, salt and water. To be able to paint them in color, I had bought a box of colored pencils which I pulverized, taking care to remove pieces of wood before adding water to get a liquid color. You can imagine many board games with flour, water and a little salt. Another prisoner had even started to design the surface of areas that I had imagined for the production of the board in 3D. I think I played at least 50 games of risk in prison. A game could go on for several weeks because we were up to ten players. To give you an idea, there are 42 areas on the base board game, the largest board I made covered 189 areas. I was often the first to be eliminated from the game because I always tried to fight the strongest and motivate the others to equalize by attacking. I noticed that in prison often someone thinks they are the boss and everyone fears him and no one dares to fight him in the game and create tension; so that’s always the one who wins. I’ve also written about 50 alternate rules for the risk game to make it more collaborative than competitive. Unfortunately, when I left prison, all I was only able to regain the playing boards, the cards and figures remained in my cell and were not taken with my belongings.
What I will never forget is the guard opening the door at 6:45 am every morning and saying, “Morning” to me. At first I replied and found it interesting that you took the effort to say hello to me every morning, it gives you a little consideration, humanity. But one morning I was in a bad mood and didn’t feel like answering, and the guard began to insist, “MORNING! MORNING!“. I turned my head and he left. However, I hadn’t said anything, I hadn’t returned his greeting. The next morning when another guard said to me, “Morning,” I took a test and just lifted my foot and he left. So I realized with horror that every morning “morning” did not mean a morning greeting, but a question:”Are you still alive?” And that whatever gesture or answer to the guard meant: “Everything is fine, I haven’t killed myself yet”. This word still makes my blood run cold today.
There are other texts that I have written that describe my high points in prison in more detail. For example, how I found myself in solitary confinement twice on made-up allegations that I shouted out my window at two demonstrations by supporters. The second time this happened, the other inmates signed a handwritten petition stating that I had not called out my window. When I heard about it, it sent cold shivers down my spine. I experienced very strong moments in prison. Often we devote ourselves in the irony of our existence and our interactions with others. There was an exchange in prison and people I was able to meet with an intensity that I will never forget. Another text “Escalation of arbitrariness, Disciplinary Procedure and Liberation of a Bird” also explains how I discovered a dead baby bird in a waiting cell during the trial. I brought it with me to court because no one would believe me if I told it without proof. It’s one of those little dungeons that are next to every hearing room. Inside there was a smell of decomposing carcass. I also told how a guard let me catch a skinny pigeon in the hallway to the court that was reserved for prisoners. I was able to let it fly it out the hearing room window.
I continue to dream even today two or three times a week that I will be arrested by the police in different situations or in different places. Once a month I dream that a police officer shoots me while being arrested. I find it difficult to take initiatives because in prison you are not allowed to do anything of your own accord, you must always submit to the will of the outside world. I also find that I am more easily dragged along by others and that it is difficult to validate myself or just be myself. I don’t even know who I am anymore. I no longer have an identity and all the people I meet know me through this trial: “Ah, that’s the one from the trial”. This trial becomes my new identity. And even if one asks me a question about what I do in Hamburg, then I inevitably come to mention the trial, because otherwise I would not be here, but with my relatives in France. I don’t see any sense in this city and it seems pretty depressing to me. I’ve always hated cities. I believe they should be deconstructed and parcels distributed free and tax-free to those who want them. Cities are not holy places, there is no autonomy of food or energy sources. Sooner or later they will collapse. I miss my family and friends. Because one of the principles of imprisonment is to separate you from your loved ones and where you live, I get the impression that despite leaving prison in December, I am still imprisoned. I’ve only been to France to visit my family once, because I found a moment between work and meeting days. And since the coronavirus, it has been impossible to get across the border. A friend named Monique Tatala was seriously ill in February, and when I finally had a weekend to visit her in the hospital, I learned that she had passed away a few days before I left.
I was born in Nancy, a city in north-eastern France, 80 kilometers from the village of Bure, where the project to dump highly radioactive nuclear waste at a depth of 500 meters is taking place. Before going to law school to become an environmental attorney, I went on long bike rides and began reading all of the favorite books by Christopher McCandless, the young man whose life inspired the movie “Into the Wild”. I was able to discover Tolstoï, Jack London and Henri David Thoreau, my favorite writers. The latter lived alone in the forest for 2 years and refused to pay taxes to the American state that was enslaving PoC. He lived an independent life by building a little hut in the woods, although certain witnesses tell, that his mother continued to wash his clothes for him and that the cakes left on the cabin windowsill disappeared. He also turned against the war against Mexico, which ultimately was a US colonization war with the loss of enormous areas of Mexico. Without this war, for example, Texas would not be part of the United States. The wall that divides Mexico and the United States is a wall to be torn down.
Here is a quote from his report, written after spending one night in prison in July 1846, 174 years before the G20 in Hamburg:
“In my brief experience of human life, I found that the obstacles on my way were not living people, but dead institutions. People are as innocent as the morning is for the one who wakes up early, for the confident pilgrim, as well as for the morning traveler he has passed on his way into poetry. While institutions like the church, the state and the school, property because of the blind respect that is given to them, dark and spectral ghosts. When I gave myself to my poetic dream of earthly paradise, I hadn’t expected to be disturbed by a Chippewa; but I thought that he was likely to be devoured by some monstrous institution. The only robber [highwayman] I have ever met was the state. When I refused to pay the tax he asked for this protection that I did not want, he himself stole it from me. When I called for the freedom he had proclaimed, he locked me up.
I love humanity, I hate the institutions of their ancestors. Neither the thieves nor the highwaymen, but the gendarmes and the judges, neither the fishermen, but the priests, not the the ignorants but the pedants and educators, not the foreign enemies, but the armies set in motion, not the Pirates, but the warships. No malicious intent without payment, but organized benevolence. For example, the prison guard or gendarme, who is only regarded as a man and a neighbor – with a life expectancy of around 70 years – can prove to be an upright and trustworthy man with a brain capable of thinking, but as an official and a state instrument he is no more understanding or heart than the key to his prison or his baton. The saddest thing is that people willingly accept the nature & the task of a brutal character. There are certainly enough ways that a person can earn a living without having them as a harmful neighbor & companion. There are certainly enough stones in the travelers path without anyone having to add their own body to all of this.
To take a single example, no doubt since the dawn of time there have never been worse crimes committed than in the current Mexican War [ended on terms which Mexico was forced to leave the States of Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona to the US (..)].
Like the merciless command: move or you will be driven out, be the master of your actions or you will become one of the most insignificant slave instruments without you even realizing it.
All people are more or less trapped in the tomb of their customs, and of some only the few hairs on their skulls come out of the earth. Those who are physically dead are worth more because at least life takes place in their decomposition.
Those who have to defend an area that they have unlawfully appropriated by certificates of title, slaves they keep to serve them, those who would like to receive their final inspiration to preserve it forever, demand the help of the institutions, that stereotyped and terrifying testament of the past. But those who are themselves something to be defended, who are not enslaved, who have made an accord with their time, reject this kind of submission ”.
The first thing that made me sad while reading his diary is the lack of practically any wilderness these days. I have come to the conclusion that living a life of inner meditation like his would be even criminalized as our industrial civilization is currently destroying 200 species of animals and plants every day. That would be a meditation on the disaster. On July 7, 2020, 219,000 species of plants and animals will be wiped out from our industrial & capitalist civilization since the G20 in Hamburg. The demonstrations did not, in my opinion, make any species disappear, not even a single luxury brand company. I have no desire to list the extent of the catastrophe of a doom taking place here, I believe everyone has heard of it and can do some research to get information. In the hearings that preoccupied this court, I heard understanding for the fight against National Socialism with violence, but in a democracy as we know it today, that is not appropriate. The problem is that we are not in a democracy, but in a representative democracy.
Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès, in his speech of September 7, 1789, declared immediately after the French Revolution: “France does not have to be a democracy, but a representative democracy. The choice between these two types of legislation is beyond doubt between us. For one thing, the enormous number of our fellow citizens have neither sufficient knowledge nor enough free time to want to deal directly with the laws that are supposed to govern France; they must therefore limit themselves to electing representatives. […] The citizens who nominate representatives therefore renounce and must renounce from making the law themselves; they have no particular will to impose. If they dictated the will, France would no longer be a representative state, it would be a democratic state. The people, I repeat, in a country that is not a democracy (France would not know how it should be), the people can only speak and act through their representatives.”
This person, who took an active part in the formulation of the political system after the French Revolution, has the intellectual honesty to recognize that a representative democracy is not a democracy. Today, in order to avoid losing its interests and the risk of disappearing under a new dissatisfaction of the people, the ruling class lulls us from school time and repeats incessantly on television that we are in an “advanced democracy”. This presumptuous formulation tries to make us believe that we have even gone beyond democracy when in reality we have never reached that stage, but are still in a representative democracy.
I have chosen to act rather than give my power to a representative. “You send your agents into an environment of corruption; don’t be surprised if they get out there corrupted ”wrote Élisée Reclus in her text: “Don’t vote, act”. Parliaments are flooded with lobbyism, the interests of huge corporations and the financial world.
So I started to join the Anonymous movement, limiting myself to writing texts and making videos of a campaign against the big useless and enforced projects. It was aimed at the websites of huge industries or the French state with regard to the implementation of various projects, such as the Sivens dam, the nuclear waste bin in Bure or the airport of Notre Dame des Landes. At the same time I went to the demonstration in Sivens in October 2014, where Rémi Fraisse was killed by a police grenade about 100 meters away from me. It was one of my first demonstrations and I was traumatized by police violence, the 400 explosive shells that led to night blindness, the lie of the state, that obscured the circumstances of his death, the media propaganda of criminalization, and the indifference of the judiciary, which dismissed the case against the will of the Rémi family for symbolic condemnation. The next morning I immediately called my little sister and cried and I realized that with all the grenades exploding around me, I could have died. I’ve also had hearing problems that have worsened and high pitched persistent tinnitus in my ear. But the worst thing for me is that I can say in front of you today, that a young man of my age died next to me in a demonstration, and that I can say it in cold blood. Something in me died out during my imprisonment, I lost some of my emotions in prison.
So that you can understand it a little better, I would like to tell you about a few spheres related to this day of mobilization, which took place in the middle of the nature of Tescou (south-east of France); the prefecture had promised not to use gendarmes in order to avoid creating tension and even wanted to withdraw the construction vehicles if necessary.
The Sivens Dam was supported by the CACG, a public and private body, which allowed it to implement a Declaration of Public Benefit, as well as access to taxpayers’ funds: almost 4 million euros in public money to build a dam for the company of an intensive agriculture. But the culmination was that the Fourrogue Dam, which had just been built prior to this Sivens Dam project, had been declared illegal and unsuitable by the Administrative Court after its construction. As a result, it could not even carry out the job it was built for, that is, watering of agriculture. This shows the interest behind these projects, mainly the misappropriation of public funds. The sponsors of this project want to build approximately 50 dams in the region and are currently considering re-implementing a dam project not far from the area where Rémi, a young man of 21, was killed by the police. A small river must be able to extend freely into the sea. Is it healthier to adapt to nature or to adapt nature to capitalism?
I would like to get explained where the progress is with corporations like Bayer/Monsanto, which patent the living and mutate plants in such a way that it is impossible to reuse the seeds every year without having to buy them. Nowadays it has been shown that a genetic code is passed on from generation to generation in the ancient varieties of seeds, the plant adapts to its environment, it has intelligence, it improves and gains strength from year to year. Bayer & Monsanto are responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people from illness or suicide, particularly by banning the use of certain seeds and forcing genetically modified seeds on them. In India, for example, farmers get into debt because they have to buy them every year. However, you never see the heads of these companies spend a year and 4 months in a closed prison. To get back to the Anonymous movement, I found out about the existence of the nuclear waste landfill project in Bure on the Internet, just a few steps away from me. I hadn’t heard about it in school, on JT, on a TV channel, or in the newspapers. So I did some research and discovered that people have been fighting and mobilizing against this project for more than 20 years. There was even a petition signed by 50,000 people calling for a local referendum to be organized to find out whether the population agreed with this project. This petition has been ignored. It would actually be harmful to the local authorities to loose 80 million euros, which are allocated to the landfill every year for the “economic support” of the project. The nuclear money flows steadily into the schools, and school trips are organized into the underground tunnels, in which two workers have already died in a collapse of the tunnels.
When the Agence Nationale pour la Gestion des déchets Radioactifs (National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management) was reminded that the tunnels would collapse later, the person in charge replied: “This is planned, Cigéo will collapse but we prefer to speak of a confluence of rocks.“ Rather, I think that bringing the struggles together will prevent the craziness of this project. In the same way that the Italian writer Erri de Luca confirmed it for the TGV Lyon-Turin line project in Italy, I believe that the nuclear waste landfill project must be slowed down, hindered and stopped for a legitimate purpose. Defense of health, earth, air and water.
Germany theoretically stopped nuclear energy after Fukushima, but nuclear waste remains a problem. In France, where we also do not know what to do with the waste, we will renew the power plant park and introduce a new generation of reactors (EPR), mainly to be able to sell them abroad.
With regard to the complex management in Somalia by the nuclear department, this led to the fact that the barrels with nuclear waste were thrown into the sea and there were many accidents at various landfills (in New Mexico, as well as in Germany); it seems obvious that the management of nuclear waste cannot be left to these irresponsible individuals.
“You don’t solve problems with the mindsets that caused them”
– Albert Einstein
It is important to be honest about the fact that we do not know and have never known what to do with nuclear waste. From now on, an immediate stop to the production of this waste is inevitable.
This issue of management would have to be considered by society as a whole, with funding for independent research. Where do you get the money from? 80 million euros are pumped into the Meuse and Haute-Marne departments every year to buy the consent of those who will be contaminated tomorrow. In contemporary language this is not called “corrupting”, but “working with the social acceptance of a project”. Let’s redirect this sum into the search for alternatives. For existing waste, we might rather try to find solutions with the help of science than buy conscience. There are the executives of the nuclear industry, nucleocrats and other people who have made millions if not billions in profits on the back of our lives, they would equally have to give back the money for human survival.
I would like to remind you that Germany is likely to be more affected by the landfill project as Bure is in the northeast of France and in the area of prevailing winds from the east.
It is this commitment in the field of informatics against Bure and the Sivens dam that led to an initial conviction of the judiciary after 7 DGSI officials visited my parents’ residence. The following 48 hours in police custody were the horror. Since I refused to cooperate, the officers went so far as to threaten that they would take my best friend into custody because he was seen in the rush of a video cut. They managed to break me down by putting pressure on this close friend who does not share my political views. I emphasize this rampant wickedness of the French police elite. I was young, I didn’t think it would be possible to go that far. Putting pressure on loved ones I thought that is only possible in the movies or under a dictatorship. I was given four months probation and a five-year ban from participating in public competitions for certain professions. Since I was in the first semester of my law degree at the time, I decided to appeal to request a ban on my profession so that I could continue my studies and try to become an environmental attorney. Unfortunately, the appeals court upheld the ban, which was also reactivated for a period of 5 years from that date. At that moment I had to put this professional project aside and then turned to growing vegetables. An area in which the state has not yet restricted me.
In France, the German police officers are seen as the kings of de-escalation, in the meantime I have seen in Hamburg how thousands of demonstrators climb a wall to escape the police who hit skulls with batons. It was the first day of the demonstrations in Hamburg against the G20, the water cannons, which were with the escort vehicles almost from the start, were brought into position, and the police officers deployed from all directions did not even give you the opportunity to escape. There were several dozen seriously injured in the head. Why is the courts maintaining silence with regard to police violence? Where are the photos in the media of police officers hitting the skulls with batons and the columns about calls for denunciation in the post-G20 period?
I generally accuse the courts of participating in a closed group of people who, on the basis of a division of labor between the police and the courts, cause and encourage these crimes through their laxity. The courts belonging to this group are accomplices of all violence carried out by the police in the G20, because no one has distanced themselves from this violence. There has been no condemnation of police officers since the G20, despite numerous videos and documentation from citizens. But that is also a structural problem of the police institution, the police do not investigate themselves. I blame the judiciary in general.
Bertold Brecht said: “The raging river is called violent. Why not the river bed that narrows it. ”

“Do we have to host the G20 or prevent it through protests?”

At this summit we find the five largest arms dealers in the world, namely the United States, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, all also permanent members of the UN Security Council. “If you are for peace, you don’t sell weapons”, these are the words of an undocumented man from Guinea, said during the one-hour exit in building A. He told me a lot about Guinea and Africa in general, a continent rich of resources, but poor because of the exploitation by the capitalist system. If Thomas Sankara or Patrice Lumumba had not both been murdered by weapons built in the country’s northern hemisphere, Africa would have a different face today.
During the Hamburg G20, France and Germany sold arms to Turkey. The weapons were likely used in the Turkish offensive against the Kurds in Rojava in northern Syria. Turkish journalists are still in custody for revealing that Erdogan had delivered weapons to Daesh. If a person hands a stone to a protester, they may be charged with complicity in an act of extreme violence and risk ending up in prison. But selling arms is a lawful act. Perhaps the problem arises from the fact that it is a gift, and that in your eyes it is more right to become a stone merchant. Or maybe that has nothing to do with financial interests and it would be a moral question: it’s good to sell guns since they serve war to create peace, a contradiction already described by George Orwell in his 1984 work. Anarchists were recently tortured in Russia. The torture encountered in Turkey or in Saudi Arabia. Do you just have the idea of extreme violence that your summit embodies, this gathering of the 20 richest states on the planet?
There is one particularly serious aspect to this matter, 5 people are responsible for all damage caused by a demonstration. 99% of the alleged acts are not personally targeted at the accused. The indictment extends to over one million euros in damages. The prosecutor tries to construct and impose a broad view of complicity, to the point where it goes beyond the presumed presence of the accused. Specifically, imagine that during a demonstration someone sets fire to a car 50 meters in front of you: you are considered responsible for the damage. But that’s nothing! Now imagine you are leaving the demonstration, 10 minutes later a Molotov cocktail is thrown: although you are no longer there,you will be held responsible for it too.
There are many problems in this trial, in prison, in the police, in capitalism, in the state and its world. These different subjects are, among other things, like general decomposition: the pursuit of leadership, globalization, classification. The personality of the individual, his identity, his creativity, his uniqueness must be put in a container, in a group.
Here is another quote from Thoreau:
“A man’s unique character is evident in every line of his face and every action. Confusing one man for another and always looking at them globally is a sign of stupidity. The limited mind only distinguishes races, nations, or extended families, while a wise man distinguishes the individual.”
Thoreau’s Diary – July 1848
I’m not going to explain what I didn’t do and if you ask me what I think then this further quote might do justice:
“Whatever my judgment on this or that act or this or that individual person is, I will never raise my voice along with the cries of hatred that the gunmen, police, judiciary, priests and law set in motion to uphold their privileges..” – Elisée Reclus
You have a little time before the end of these proceedings to limit the indictment to just what I could do, and as long as that is not the case, I refuse to comment on the charges concerning me in relation to the demonstration in the Elbchaussee. You have to be sure: whether I was actually there, whether you mistook me for someone else, or whether I just wasn’t there with evidence.
In France, I was charged with cutting up a fence around a nuclear waste landfill project, and I undertook this act in court to explain it. This procedure is rewritten in a brochure with the title: «You must know that I do not expect anything from your institution», which has also been translated into German. Further lawsuits against anarchists such as that of Alexandre Marius Jacob also contain a recognition and declaration in front of the court about the acts carried out. It is a strategy of interruption. I understand the stance of unwillingness to explain and remain silent, and I want to show solidarity with those who have chosen to remain silent in the trials. Nonetheless, I hate the lying reports from prosecutors or the police. And it takes place in your courts where your versions manifest and are picked up by the judges and then the media. When I explain myself today, it is for the purpose of conveying to you a reality that I experienced in the streets of Hamburg.

On the afternoon of July 7, 2017, the German police gave another demonstration of their de-escalation strategy. In a never-ending ballet by the police officers who repeatedly accused everything around the Rote Flora as they passed by. I saw several times how the police beat people on the sidewalk with batons for no reason, as well as people who were sitting on the terraces of the bars and having a drink. Perhaps, in the spirit of the police, the mere presence of someone around the Rote Flora was enough guilt. In the small park directly behind it, 4 police officers ran towards a person who was in a corner next to a bush, this person was beaten apart from the looks and cameras. I saw a journalist who was beaten by the police. And then the umpteenth person who was badly beaten with batons in front of the Rote Flora, I approached spontaneously with other people, screaming with indignation. A police officer stared into my face. All my friends in France know that I have a calm nature, but the feeling of injustice outrages me. So I put my backpack on the floor and threw 2 bottles of beer in front of me at the police. There was violent action by the police at the origin of this gesture, I do not want to apologize. All the more so since I failed to hit the police officers and the bottles fell to the floor next to them (as can be seen on the video). Surely in your eyes it looks like it remains illegal whether the projectile hits a police officer or not, just as your laws forbid using the baton at head level or spraying tear gas in the face. Has there been any trial against a police officer who struck the air with a baton near the head without hitting it? No. There has not even been a single trial of a police officer who hit a skull with a baton in the G20. Do you have to go to a demonstration wearing a helmet from now on?
A little later, on a police video, you see me walking towards a lady of a certain age who is pushing her bike. She had stopped in the middle of the street while a water cannon moved towards her. I helped her back onto the sidewalk and when we got there we were exposed to a jet of water from the water cannon that was clearly aimed at both of us. You always show an excessive imagination and extreme sensitivity when you write in your indictments that this projectile was aimed at the police and add “accepting that it could have seriously injured the police officers.” Because before one thinks about it, one should perhaps clarify that the projectile actually hits a police officer. Once this thing is over, It is important to recognize that it is difficult to seriously injure a police officer when he is wearing protective clothing, unlike the demonstrators who do not wear them. While we were waiting, the powerful jet of water obviously hit us and no one accuses the police, of having seriously injured the elderly lady. After making sure the latter was okay,, I picked up 2 stones and threw them at the water cannon. The police officers were positioned behind the water cannon.
Do not find me in your definition of good or bad demonstrator, you should just know that I remain in solidarity with every person who finds himself/herself in front of the judiciary after demonstrations: whether it is the G20 or the yellow vests, the Minneapolis or the working-class neighborhoods in Chile or that of Hong Kong. Because once again, whatever my personal judgment of this or that act or this or that individual person is, I will never raise my voice along with the cries of hatred that armed men, police, judiciary, priests and laws set in motion maintain their privileges.
There have been numerous attempts to block the G20 with non-violent sit-ins; I also participated in this strategy and a person next to me found himself holding a violet while another police officer kicked me while we were sitting. I found that using this tactic is less dangerous in the presence of cameras capturing the scene. The police seem very image-conscious and are reluctant to demonstrate their violence under lenses, but do not hesitate to use their dark sides as soon as a little shadow shows up.
“Passive non-violent resistance is effective in that your adversary follows the same rules as you. But when a peaceful demonstration meets nothing but violence, the effectiveness ends. For me, not using violence is not a moral principle, but a strategy. There is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon. »
– Nelson Mandela
There is a February 1989 study of the effects of uniforms worn by law enforcement officers in Canada. The study found that a person is more likely to be violent when wearing a uniform. That is why I do not necessarily blame the individual, but rather the situation that arises from being a police officer. It is possible that soon, like in Minneapolis, more and more people will need to dismantle the police.
As a final point: the German press often highlights the economic impact of demonstrations as the most important point. I think that I heard for the entire G20 in Hamburg that the damage involved was 10 million euros. I will prove to you that a healthy eating person who does some damage at a demonstration costs less money than a society used to McDo. A 2019 article in “Libération” magazine estimates that the cost of poor nutrition to health in France is € 55 billion a year. It would take 5,500 demonstrations each year with 10 million euros in damage to offset the economic impact of poor nutrition. Knowing that the mobilizations dragged on for 4 days, it is not possible tocarry out more than 92 of them per year. Unless one allows oneself to imagine several demonstrations at the same time. Then 59 demonstrations like the one in Hamburg would have to be carried out at the same time and this would have to be repeated continuously in one year in order to achieve the same level of economic damage from poor nutrition in France. I didn’t find any numbers related to Germany, but I think they should be pretty much the same. Rounding up, one can say that poor nutrition costs 100 billion euros in Germany and France. So 300 billion euros since the G20 in Hamburg, isn’t it wiser to bring lawsuits against the big players in the food industry who are poisoning our food and our lives?
Here are a few words of Ravachol:
“In drawing up the paragraphs of the law, the legislators forgot that they are not addressing the cause but only the effects, and in doing so they are not eradicating the crime; in truth, the reasons still exist and only the effects emerge. Yes, I repeat: it is society that creates the criminals, and I swear to you, instead of beating them, you should focus your intelligence and your strength on transforming society. Suddenly you suppress any crime; and your work, which is now directed against the reasons, will be much greater and much more fruitful than it can be achieved by your judiciary, which is reduced to punishing the effects »
I heard the court tried to know whether the sentence was sufficient to have an educational effect on the accused. I was surprised to find out about this type of educational effect. Do you think that imprisonment punishment forces you not to start again? There is an open prison, where the relapse rate in Norway is 20%, the area where I was incarcerated for 1 year and 4 months has a relapse rate of 70%. In this Norwegian prison, the guards sometimes sing a song for the newcomers, you are listened to, you experience love and consideration. When I got to your prison, I was locked in the same underpants 23 hours out of 24 for a month and received serious looks from the guards who despise you. But at the risk, not having made myself clear, because you might think that I would be happy with a Norwegian prison. As Ravachol said, “it is society that produces criminals” and criminologist Alexandre Lassange affirmed that “society has the criminals it deserves”. I think by changing society that we can root out any crime. And I think that there is a 0% chance of a relapse in this trial because the reason has disappeared, there will never be another G20 in Hamburg.
My next statement will contain a text that assumes a G20 without police, which I see as an alternative to your summit, as well as a criticism of industrial civilization and the renewable energies of green capitalism. I will also present your court with a comic strip with potato men that I drew in prison, in which I explain how all countries in the world can get rid of their atomic bombs.

26. June 2020
by Loïc

Prozesserklärung von Loic

For the trial, there was a bus full of relatives and solidary people
that arrived from Frankfurt. The alliance „united we stand“ set up a
spot in front of the court building on Sievekingplatz with hot drinks
and music. Speeches where held about background information on the
courtcase. The „Libertäres Zentrum“ (LiZ) nextdoor provided breakfast
and a space to warm up during the day.

The courtroom was crowded so that many visitors had to stay outside, a
class from a school was alos watching. When the accused entered the
room, there was cheering and applause.

After checking the personal data (which is common at beginning of
trials), it was announced that the OLG (court higher than the one of the
trial) had ferused a second defender to the accused, leaving them with
one instead of the demanded two defenders.

After reading out the paper of accusations, word was given to the
defense, who declared that being present within a crowd of people while
crimes/offenses are committed, is not a crime. In addition, this
presence was not proved but only based on leads. It was claimed that
this trial was used to hide the political failure of organizing the G 20
gathering and calm down the public.

Furthermore the defense critisized the fact that the accused Halil and
Can had been refused a „Haftverschonung“ (Haftverschonung means that
they don‘t have to stay in remand/detention for the duration of the
trial, so they can be outside prison till they are sentenced by court).
The judge had granted this three weeks ago so they were set free. But
only for hours because the proscuter successfully argued against this,
so they had to return to prison. The reason given for keeping them in
detention was „Fluchtgefahr“ (supposed flight), which should be proved
to be incorrect by the fact that they deliberately returned to prison
after it was decided.

In addition to that, the defense talked about the „Soko Schwarzer Block“
(special investigation team concerning black block) consisting of 180
officers and how they trespassed their authority during investigations.

The trial ended around midday. The accused left the room with applause
and raized fists. The trial will be continued 8th and 10th of January 2019.

there will be a manifestation/demonstration 12 o clock next saturday in
front of the „Untersuchungsgefängnis Holstenglacis“ (the prison in
Holstenglacis, where the people are kept). There will be speeches and
music to send „solidarity through the walls“ to the prisoners. Together
with the three NoG20-activists from the Elbchaussee trial, there is also
the Kurdish political prisoner Mahmut Kaya, whose trial for
participating PKK started last week and wil be continued 20th of December.

source:
https://anfdeutsch.com/aktuelles/g20-prozess-zum-elbchaussee-komplex-8431

So the defendent as well as the prosecution gave notice of appeal and the process will go into the second instance.

We will inform you on  the next trial date as soon as we now it.

This morning, o 19th of June, the planned beginning of the trial against activist R. on 20th of June 2018 was cancelled due to a formal error in the penalty order. The entire section describing the supposed criminal act was missing. This shows how the court is overstrained by the number of lawsuits they‘re trying to push through.

With the trial‘s beginning being cancelled for now, the courts strategy to blindside R. failed.

The court set a trial date very soon, ignored that the lawyer has no time at the trial date by dismissing an application to change the date, did not give real access to the court files by only allowing access in Hamburg – to a lawyer far away in Göttingen. In the end this led to having no lawyer and no clue whats in the court files four days before the trial. Luckily they did not get through with their strategy.

There will be no trial this week but they might send a new penalty order with a new trial date. If that happens the info will be published here.

Solidarity not penalty orders!

Freedom for all G20 prisoners!

you need to judge about a man today. You described him as an ‘aggressive criminal’ and as ‘disrespectful towards human dignity’. I personally don’t care with what attributes you label me. I am just a guy with a strong will.
First of all i want to say that the ladies and gentlemen of politics, police inspectors and prosecutors probably believe they can hinder the dissent on the streets if they arrest and lock up a bunch of kids.
Likely they believe that prison is enough to hold back the rebellious voices that arise everywhere.
Likely they believe that repression will stop our thirst for freedom. Our will to create a better world.
Well, these people are mistaken.
They are wrong. History proves that as well.
As i, many young people had to live through trials like this one. Today it is Hamburg, yesterday it was Genoa and before that Seattle.
With all ‘legal’ means and ‘judicial measures for the trials’ they try to limit the voices of rebellion that arise everywhere.
In any case, however the decision of the court, it will not change our protest. Many young man and women who are driven by the same ideals will continue to go to the streets everywhere in Europe. And they will not care about the prisons that try hard to get filled with political prisoners.
But let us get to the point, judge, prosecutor, jurywoman, juryman, juvenile probation officer.
Let’s get to the point.
In relation to the matter i am accused of today, i will use my right to stay silent, as you can imagine.
But i want to say something about the motives of why a young worker from a remote town east of the foothills of the Alps came to Hamburg. He did this to express his disapproval of the G20 summit.
G20. The name alone is somehow perverted.
20 people, man and woman, who represent the richest industrial nations of the world gather around one table. They all sit together to decide about our future. Yes, i said it right: ‘our’ future. My future, the future of all people who sit in this room today, as well as the future of 7 billion people more who live on our beautiful earth.
20 people decide about our life and death.
The population is of course not invited to this nice banquette. We are nothing more that the stupid flock of sheep off the most powerful in this world.
Submissive audience of this theater in which a handful of people hold all humanity in their hands.
Judge, i have thought about it long before i came to Hamburg.
I have thought about Trump and his United States of America who, under the flags of democracy and freedom, think of themselves as police of the whole world. I have thought about the many conflicts that the American giant instigates in every corner of this planet. From Middle East to Africa. All for the goal to get control over one or the other source of energy. Not so important that always the same ones die: civilians, women, children.
I also thought about Putin, the new tsar of Russia who systematically violates human rights in his country and who laughs about every form of opposition.
I thought about the Saudi Arabians and about their terror on which their government is founded and with whom we western countries make huge business.
I thought about Erdoğan, who tortures, kills and locks up his opponents.
I also thought about my own country, in which every government puts out new laws that nonstop cut the rights of students and employees.
In short, they are that, the headliners of the grad banquette that took place last Juli in Hamburg.
The biggest war mongers and murderers our present-day world knows.
Before i came to Hamburg, i also thought about the injustice that destroys our planet. It seems almost banal to me to repeat that 1% of the richest population of the world is as wealthy as 99% of the poorest population together. It seems almost banal to me to repeat that the 85 richest people in the world are as wealthy as 50% of the poorest population together. 85 people compared to 3,5 billion.
Just a few numbers that are enough to get an idea,
An then, judge, jurywoman, juryman, prosecutor, juvenile probation officer, i thought about my city before i came to Hamburg: i thought about Feltre. That is the place where i was born in, where i grew up, where i want to live. It is a small medieval town that lays in the eastern foothills of the alps like a jewel. I thought about the mountains that color pink at sunset. I thought about the beautiful landscape that i am lucky enough to see through the window of my home. I thought about the stunning beauty of this place.
An then i thought about the rivers in my beautiful valley that are violated by many companies, who want to get allowances to built waterworks for power, never mind the damage they will inflict on the environment and the population. I thought about the mountains that get befallen by mass tourism and became a horrible military drill ground.
I thought about this beautiful place in which i live and which gets sold off to ruthless profiteers. Same as many other valleys in every corner of the planet in which beauty gets destroyed in the name of progress.
So, urged by all these thoughts i had decided to come to Hamburg and to demonstrate. To come here was more a duty than a right for me.
I found it right to rise against this conscienceless politics that chases our world into the abyss,
I found it right to fight so that at least something in this world would get a little bit more human, more dignified, more just.
I found it right to go on the streets as a reminder that the population is not a flock of sheep and that it needs to be involved in decision making.
The decision to come to Hamburg was a decision of interest. It was the decision to stand on the side of those who fight for their rights. It was a decision against those who want to steal it from them. It was the decision to stand on the side of the oppressed, and against the oppressors. It was the decision to fight against the smaller and bigger powerful ones who treat our world as if it was a toy. And who do not care that it is always the rest of the population who has to pay for it. I have made my decision and i am not afraid if there, unjustly, will be a price i have to pay for that.
Nevertheless is there something i want to say to you, if you believe me or not: i do not like violence. But i have ideals and i decided to fight for them.
I am not done.
In a historical time in which everywhere in the world new borders arise, new fences with barb wire are raised and where walls are built from the alps to the Med, is it wonderful to me that in a single city thousand young people from every part of Europe are ready to go on the streets together. Beyond all borders. With the one goal, to make the world a little better than as we found it.
Because, judge, jurywoman, juryman, prosecutor, juvenile probation officer, we are not the flock of sheep off twenty powerful rulers. We are women and men who want the right to decide about their own lives.
For that we fight. And for that we will continue fighting.

The trial took place in one of the smaller courtrooms. A make-shift security control point had been set up in front of the courtroom, likely in order to cast the accused as “dangerous” to the public. Members of the press were present. Photographers tried to take pictures of the accused before he was able to shield his face. A court officer interrupted them and stated that no pictures were to be taken in the courtroom. The photographer then demanded to be allowed to talk to the judge, which the court officer allowed him. After his talk with the judge, the photographer continued taking photos of the accused, including close-ups.

The indictment charges the accused with resisting officers and causing bodily harm by dangerous means according to Sections 114 and 223, 224 of the German Criminal Code for acts which he allegedly committed in the evening of the 6th of July. After the reading of the indictment the defense read out a short statement by the accused according to which he admitted his guilt and regretted his deeds. He had let himself become caught up in the aggressive atmosphere. He did not deny the political background, but stood by his decision to come to the g20 summit in order to protest peacefully. Living in Sicily, he was intimately aware of the refugee crisis, which is why he had come to Hamburg to protest peacefully against the politics of the G20. The defense counsel stated that further questions would not be answered. Both the prosecutor and the judge nonetheless posed several questions, the judge noting that, while it was the right of the accused not to say anything further, this lead to a “different impression”.

Witness testimony was introduced in written form as the witness was not present. Witness Mr. Hachmann, an officer with the federal police in Bielefeld, was active during the summit as a so-called “Observer of crimes” (Tatbeobachter) in civilian clothing. According to his statement, the accused and another person were present in a group of “black bloc” activists when the accused threw a glass bottle in the direction of a nearby group of 40 police officers wearing protective gear. The bottle had broken on the helmet of one officer, no injured officers had been found out. Hachmann further stated that he had followed the two persons and seen them take off their “masks” in a corner shop and changing their clothes on a nearby street corner. After that, he had talked to his colleagues Lachmann and Glanzin – the latter is likely the officer who testified in the G20 trial against another accused on Tuesday. However, the accused had not been arrested at the scene, but had been recognized one day later at some distance from the alleged crime scene and had been arrested then. The defense protested against the fact that the witness had not appeared in person, given that his written statement contained a number of assumptions regarding which they were now unable to ask questions. The accused does not have prior convictions. Questions by the judge and the prosecutor regarding his personal details showed some skepticism in this regard, which led to the defense counsel remarking that “we are lucky this trial does not take place under a different code of laws”. The prosecutor had already made a motion that a DNA sample be collected from the accused. The defense felt that this was questionable, but did not really object either. The accused gave his consent, and as experts able to take a DNA sample were already present, the trial was interrupted for a short time so that it could be collected.

In her concluding statement, the prosecutor found that the defendant was guilty of violations of Sections 114 and 223, 224 of the Criminal Code. She stated that the situation had been very dangerous and that it had been only due to chance that nobody had been seriously injured. His admission of guilt and his statement of regret called for a lighter sentence, the “positive social prognosis” as well as his consent to the taking of a DNA sample. Nonetheless, she went on to say, he had also done his part to ensure that the sense of security of the population during the summit had been impaired. Therefore, the sentence had to take into account the principle of general prevention. She moved that the defendant be sentenced to a suspended prison sentence of one year and three months, with the probationary period set at three years, and that he be ordered to pay an additional fine of 700 Euros as a condition of suspension.

The defense closing statement criticized the draconic judgments handed down in the previous G20 trials and the reasoning by the courts in these trials. The defense counsel referred to an “anchoring effect”, i.e. the phenomenon of people subconsciously basing their judgments on numbers which had been given by others previously. Generally speaking, courts in the trials against NoG20 activists had been very reluctant to free themselves from the influence of the first judgment and sentence, as shown by the fact that differences between the various trials were hardly considered at all and almost all accused were given similar, exceptionally high sentences. This was a cause for concern. He also referred to the necessity that the principle of proportionality be upheld in sentencing. It was only the special circumstance of the G20 which led to the crime of attempting to cause bodily harm by dangerous means being elevated from a rather commonplace occurrence to something totally out of the ordinary. Similar to the arguments brought by another defense attorney in the trial on Tuesday, he called upon the courts to free themselves of the “special circumstance G20” and the anchoring effect and to pass judgment in a neutral manner. Most of the G20-accused did not have prior convictions. Based on Sect. 114 of the Criminal Code, crimes which just one year ago would have led to a fine now led to overlong prison sentences. He referred to examples of earlier criminal acts with a political background, one concerning the throwing of a bottle, one concerning a case of causing bodily harm by dangerous means which led to actual injuries. Both trials concerned the same charges, but both lead only to fines. The defense counsel criticized the sentence requested by the prosecution and the fact that the police had not even tried to find out whether officers had been injured. It would have been important to consider this fact and the question of injuries. He also referred to the fact that his client was particularly vulnerable to the negative consequences of detention. Any motions to be made in detention could only be brought in the German language, which made it very hard for detained persons who did not speak German to bring such motions, given that counsel could not bring motions on behalf of their clients. In addition, his client had taken responsibility for his actions also by not insisting on the witness appearing in person. He stated that he had doubts concerning his client’s alleged potential for violence and the “criminal energy” expended by his client – after all, the so-called “mask” had consisted solely of a hoodie. As to the alleged high dangerousness of his acts, this was already contained in the charges themselves and thus could not be used to aggravate the sentence. Finally, neither did the principle of general prevention call for higher sentence as this would require a rise in the number of similar crimes since G20 which endangered the community. The defense closing argument ended with a motion that the defendant be sentenced to the minimum sentence of six months, suspended, with a probationary period of three years.

The judge followed the prosecution and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of 1 year and 3 months, with a probationary period of 3 years. To explain why she had not considered mitigating circumstances, she stated that the intentions of the accused had been clear. She added that the G20 summit had been an exceptional situation which could not be compared with other demonstrations and therefore required a commensurate sentence. By throwing the bottle, the defendant had done his part in causing disturbances during the summit, he had called into question the state’s monopoly of force and had failed to see the “human in the uniform”. The police were entitled to be respected and held in high regard for their commitment and could not be allowed to be made into a target for violence. The situation in its entirety had to be considered differently from the way the defense had proposed. The conviction and sentence was a warning and an educational measure. She did not set any further conditions for suspension of the sentence as the costs of the trial were “high enough” given the limited income of the accused.

In the first Trial on 28th of August a young man from the Netherlands is accused at Court for heavy Trespassing, Resistance and Assault. Surprisingly thin is the evidence for this heavy accusations. There are no Videos or Pictures of the Action, just two Cops are supposed to witness the Acts. As there was such an extended Video-Documentation of the Protests against the G20-summit made by the Cops this is pretty unbelievable. Nevertheless is the dutch comrade locked up in Pre-Trial Prison since the beginning of July.

The Accused of the second Trial is a Person with polish Papers . He was detained far away from any Protests against G20 and is held in Pre-Trial Prison since beginning of July. The Accusations against him are very weak – given the construction of the prosecuter, who only assumes that the guy, who also doesn’t show a criminal record, would have later committed a crime.

‘These Trials are as political as Trials can be’ commented Kim König from the campaign ‘United we stand!’ ’The Prosecution seriously claims in front of the whole world, that someone who carries Marbles in a city where a Protest is going on somewhere, automatically is a dangerous criminal. This adventurous Accusation, but also the hindrance of the defence in the Pre-Trial Detention during the Summit as well as the violation of the Rights of the Prisoners in the Prison Billwerder proof the imperative Will of the State for persecution. The State finally wants to present convictions, no matter at what costs. For that purpose the actions of the State seem to follow some kind of criminal law for enemies: Not only the two people on Trial now but many more of those without german papers who where detained during the Summit face such disproportionate Pre-Trial Imprisonment – and almost just them.

The fact that the Judge Johann Krieten has the presidency during the first Trial against the young Guy from the Netherlands makes us worry about a overly harsh Judgement. In the past years Krieten presented himself more than once as a hardliner.

These Accusations, these Trials are supposed to become a political demonstration of the Power of the System. We will oppose this with our juristic and political Resistance and our Solidarity during these and every upcoming G20-Trial.

We are not going to leave the Accused alone. Come to the Manifestations on 28th of August at 09:00 and on 29th of August 10:00 in front of the Court!’

The prosecution had accused the 21 year old defendant of having thrown six bottles at police officers at the Fischmarkt right after the cops had attacked the demonstration, and of having resisted arrest. After the judge had explained clearly that the defendant had the right to remain silent and that silence could not be used against him, i.e. that he should only say something if he wanted to, the defence counsel made a comprehensive statement for the accused. The accused also made a further statement of his own.

He stated that he had only come to the G20 to find a girl he had met a few days before at a festival. He had not originally been planning to demonstrate as he did not think this would solve the problems with the G20. He was wearing a white T-Shirt with writing on the back detailing who he was and whom he was looking for. When the demonstration was attacked and he saw police officers massively hitting women and men lying on the ground with their batons, he had been gripped by empathy and anger. He shouted at the officers, was peppersprayed and fled onto a slight hill. It is from there that he threw some bottles, hardly being able to see because of the pepperspray. He stated that he had wanted to get the officers to rethink what they were doing. During the last two months, which he had spent in detention, he had learned a lot about loneliness and had decided that he never wanted to subject himself or his family to this kind of hell again. He stated that he was aware that he had acted in a very dumb manner and that police officers are humans too.

The judge emphasized – contrary to the defendant – that he found it important that people demonstrate and state their opinion so that politicians cannot just do what they want. However, it would have been good if the defendant had also shown empathy for the officers who were placed there.

The prosecution felt that the acts the defendant was accused of constituted an unleashing of senseless violence, but after all it was clear to them that he had not come to Hamburg to engage in riots. They asked the court to sentence the accused to a suspended sentence of one year and six months, with a probationary period of two years.

The defence counsel did not ask for a specific sentence, but asked the court to hand out a sentence siginificantly below that asked for by the prosecution, and a probationary period of one year.

The judge sentenced the accused to a suspended sentence of one year and five months, with a probationary period of 2 years, as well as a payment of 500 € to the “police widows and orphans.” He held the accused to be “naive in a likeable manner”, someone who stood out among the others at the demonstration given his T-Shirt and his pink backpack. The judge summarized that the accused had seen injustices being committed and had reacted with injustices of his own – he, the judge, could not exclude that there had been injustices committed by the police. However, by meeting violence with violence, the accused had acted unjust. As to the count of resisting arrest, this had rather been “normal” resistance. General prevention did not call for a prison sentence.

The defendant is accused to have been on the way to the Demonstration ‘G20 not welcome’ on Saturday 8th of July at 9:50 nearby the Trainstation Dammtor. In his backpack was Pepperspray, diving goggles and small (Eu proved, but without german seal of approval) fireworks. Also he was carrying two marbles and a lighter. With that he supposed to have violated the Laws of assembly, Weapons and Explosives.

He was controlled and detained by officers of a Alarm-unit from Hamburg, who where on a ‘alertly break’ and controlled ‘suspicious persons’. The backpack that was unusualy big for a demonstration and the dreadlocks of his companion seemed ‘weird’ to the officers.

The (polish) defendant explained detailed to this:
Actually he didn’t want to go to the Demonstration – which started 70 minutes later in a walking distance of 27 min, as the court stated. He wanted to go to the trainstation Dammtor – 3 minutes away. On the topic of the Objects he explains that he carries the pepper spray because he was travelling via hitchhiking to visit friends in Spain – this also explains the diving goggles. He also wanted to make some Firework there to celebrate with the Friends he hadn’t see for a while. The lighter he had because he is a smoker. The marbles are a memory of his family, his sister aswell as his mother are carrying these kind of marbles. He did not knew that the pepper spray and Fireworks, that are legal in Poland are not allowed in Germany.

The prosecuter and Court only believed the explanation about the Marbles since his mother was explaining the Origin and ‘Purpose’ as a witness in the same way as he did. The rest supposed to be not believable, he must have been on the way to the Demonstration.

Senior Prosecutor Elsner demanded 6 month on Probation. His plea didn’t have much relation to the trial, instead he talked about the heavy riots during the G20 and the rightly tightened Laws before the G20. The new article114 and the tightened Law about Trespassing through reducing of the requirements (article125a) is the declared Will of the Legislator.Throwing of Stones and Bottles during Demonstrations significantly increased. Also Citizens are supposedly affected by those excess of violence. The defendant actually should write a thank-you letter to the officers that arrested him – if he would have thrown something, his sentence would have been way longer.

The Judge followed the demand for the sentence of the prosecuter.

For the Accused that means: He is free and can stay where he wants to. But he needs to report Changes of his address as well as economical Changes. And he can not offense the law during the Probation otherwise he has to go to Prison for his Sentence.