Background & Current Status of the Petition

On January 5, 2026, I sent an official petition to over 4,000 decision-makers in politics and the media. 
The goal is to draw attention to a systemic failure of oversight bodies in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate (RLP), Germany.

Updates:




🔵 Update 22 April 2026: Official Confirmation of the 2023 Statement & Escalation to Court Proceedings

Following my ultimatum to the ministry and the supervisory complaint filed with the LfDI, the situation has 
changed fundamentally over the past weeks. 
Several new documents now officially demonstrate that the Ministry of Science and Health of Rhineland‑Palatinate (MWG)
 has provided contradictory information for months and withheld essential records.

1. State Ombudsperson officially confirms the existence of the 2023 statement

On 21 April 2026, I received a letter from the State Ombudsperson confirming — for the first time — 
that the MWG did in fact prepare a written statement in 2023 and transmitted it exclusively to the Ombudsperson, not to me.

This directly contradicts the ministry’s claim of 23 March 2026, in which it dismissed the existence of any 
documents as a “misunderstanding.”

2. The ministry’s silence in response to my legal assessment

My detailed legal analysis sent to the MWG on 10 March 2026 — addressing violations of transparency, 
the right to be heard, potential breaches of EU law, and indications of arbitrary administrative conduct — remained completely unanswered.

The newly received letter now makes clear why: Any response would have contradicted the ministry’s later narrative.

3. Court proceedings initiated – Case number 1 K 242/26.MZ

Due to the ministry’s failure to provide the requested records and its unilateral deadline extensions, 
I filed an action for failure to act (Untätigkeitsklage) with the Administrative Court of Mainz on 8 April 2026.

The case is officially registered, the fee notice has been issued, and I have submitted the new evidence to the court.

4. Political and structural implications

The Ombudsperson’s confirmation shows that even an independent oversight body did not receive the full documentation. 
This raises fundamental questions about transparency and administrative conduct at the state level.

5. Conclusion

The recent developments clearly show:

• The documents exist

• They were withheld

• The ministry provided contradictory statements

• And an official oversight body has now confirmed this contradiction

I will continue to pursue transparency — in court, before authorities, and in public. Withholding or denying the existence of records 
does not only affect an individual case; it undermines trust in the rule of law as a whole.

Update: March 25, 2026 | Ultimatum Issued to Ministry; 
Formal Supervisory Complaint Filed Against Data Protection Commissioner

After the Ministry of Science and Health (MWG) suddenly claimed—following more than 10 weeks of 
bureaucratic delays—that its previous confirmation of the 2023 investigation was a "misunderstanding" and 
now denies the existence of any records, I launched a comprehensive legal and political counter-offensive on March 24, 2026:

🔴 1. 14-Day Ultimatum Served on the Ministry (MWG)

I have formally demanded that the Ministry grant me full access to the investigative files within 14 days.
Legal Basis: Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR (Right of Access), a binding European regulation, 
in conjunction with the State Transparency Act (LTranspG RLP).
The Contradiction: It is legally indefensible for internal authorities to have repeatedly confirmed the existence of a detailed 
review from 2023, only to now claim no such documents exist. The sole legal criterion is that the records concern me personally.
Consequence: Should this deadline expire without full compliance (Deadline: April 7, 2026), the path to filing an Action for Failure to 
Act (Untätigkeitsklage) under § 75 of the German Code of Administrative Procedure (VwGO) before the Administrative Court will be finalized.
🔴 2. Official Supervisory Complaint Filed with the State Data Protection Commissioner (File No: 900-0009#2026/0040-0104)

Simultaneously, I filed a formal supervisory complaint against the State Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of 
Information (LfDI), the primary oversight body.
Accusation of Deliberate Obstruction: I demand an investigation into why the LfDI repeatedly accepted the Ministry’s unilateral 
deadline extensions, despite my explicit, written warnings regarding the high risk of document destruction.
Suspected Institutional Arbitrariness: When a supreme state authority first officially confirms the existence of documents and 
subsequently denies them, it abandons the constitutional order and the rule of law (violating Art. 3, Art. 19 para. 4, 
and Art. 20 para. 3 of the German Basic Law/GG).
📢 Applying Political and Media Pressure via Extensive CC Distribution

To break the institutional wall of silence within the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, both legal filings were simultaneously 
transmitted (via CC) to the highest federal authorities, political parties, and major media outlets, including:
The Office of the Federal President of Germany
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV - Germany's domestic intelligence agency)
Key offices within the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the State Parliament (including Rep. Koçak/Die Linke, Rep. 
Wäschenbach/CDU, and BSW)
The Anti-Discrimination Bureau (ADB RLP)
Der SPIEGEL (Investigative Editorial Office)
My Conclusion: The system is attempting to evade accountability through flimsy excuses and the retroactive denial of official records. 
However, the seamless, documented chronology of events proves the exact opposite. I will not be worn down by citizen-hostile bureaucracy. 
Any authority that makes files disappear undermines the very foundation of the rule of law.

Update March 15, 2026: Further Extension of Deadlines and Escalation of Legal Challenges

Despite official mediation by the LfDI, the Ministry (MWG) continues its delay tactics:
Renewed Delay: The Ministry has requested another four-week extension. There is no legal justification for why it should take over ten 
weeks to release files from a case that was allegedly "closed" back in 2023.
Legal Confrontation: In response to this obstructionism, I have formally confronted both the Ministry and the LfDI regarding the violation 
of 18 legal norms. These include serious breaches of the German Constitution (Art. 3 & 19 GG), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and 
Section 12 of the State Transparency Act (LTranspG RLP), which mandates the "immediate" provision of information.
My Demand: I have made it clear that a superficial statement is unacceptable. If the files remain incomplete or if the 18 legal violations 
are not addressed in detail, the path is clear for an "Action for Failure to Act" (Untätigkeitsklage) 
under Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO).
Bottom Line: Those who stretch time are attempting to bend the truth. I will not allow statutory civil rights to be eroded by 
bureaucratic tactics of exhaustion.
Update February 28, 2026: Contradictions in the Ministry and Intervention by the LfDI

The latest developments reveal a systematic deadlock within the Ministry of Science and Health (MWG):

Ministry's Delay Tactics: After months of silence, the Ministry finally responded on February 21. Citing "complexity" and 
the "involvement of third parties," they extended the legal deadline for response. This directly contradicts their previous claims that the 2023 case was already closed.

Intervention by the LfDI: On February 25, 2026, the State Commissioner for Information Freedom (LfDI) officially opened a 
mediation procedure under file number 900-0009#2026/0040-0104 LfDI. They have requested clarification from the Ministry regarding the denial of access to records.

Unanswered Question: If the investigation was completed in 2023, why is there a sudden need for "third-party consultation" 
and "more time" to provide those same records? This inconsistency highlights the lack of a fair and transparent investigation in the past.

Update February 19, 2026: The Federal Office of Justice and the Limits of the Whistleblower Protection Act

Today, I received a response from the Federal External Reporting Office at the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ). The authority 
confirms receipt of my documentation – including the negligence of state authorities and the intimidation attempts by a 
member of the state parliament – but states that it cannot take action.

The reason is a legal stalemate: The BfJ argues that the personal scope of the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) is not 
applicable because I have already publicly documented my case (YouTube). According to the authority, protection is no longer granted 
if the information is already "fully available to the public".

My Conclusion: This is the paradox of the rule of law. According to this interpretation, those who have the courage to make grievances 
public lose their protection as whistleblowers. While the highest federal judicial authority refers to legal jurisdictions, the core 
issue – systematic discrimination and the silence of the authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate – remains unaddressed.

Update: February 04, 2026 – The Bureaucratic Cycle Continues

The office of the Federal Police Commissioner has now responded. As expected, they declared themselves not responsible, stating that 
the case concerns the state administration of Rhineland-Palatinate and not the federal police authorities. While every agency meticulously 
checks and confirms its "lack of jurisdiction," the core question remains unanswered: 
Who monitors the monitors when an entire state remains silent? 
The list of agencies that "take note" of the case but claim they cannot act continues to grow.

Update: February 04, 2026 – Discrepancy in Political Communication

While the parliamentary office of Christian Görke (The Left Party) recognized the gravity of the situation and forwarded my case 
to anti-racism expert Ferat Koçak, the party's federal headquarters responded with a mere boilerplate letter. They simply 
suggested seeking private legal advice. This contrast clearly demonstrates that political leadership is often detached from the 
burning reality of institutional discrimination, even while individual MPs are already taking action.

Update: February 04, 2026 – Response from the Federal Chancellery

My case has reached the German Federal Chancellery. In an official letter, Mr. Thomas Rücker confirmed the receipt and the relevance 
of the case. While pointing out the federal separation of powers, he emphasized that my concerns are by no means being disregarded and 
recommended involving the Federal Office of Justice under the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG). While the nation's highest government 
authority takes the matter seriously, the state authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate continue to persist in their silence.

Update January 24, 2026: Breakthrough with the State Ombudsman & New Political Reactions
Formal Investigation Initiated (U 58/26): In a new letter dated January 22, 2026, the State Ombudsman of Rhinland-Palatinate confirmed 
that they are investigating the administrative actions (or omissions) of the Ministry (MWG), the State Anti-Discrimination Office (LADS), 
and the ADD. I have been requested to submit all evidence regarding the systematic ignoring of my complaint from 2023.
New Case Number from the CSU: A further proceeding has been officially registered under the number CSU-275327-B5B4N9.
Ticket Received from BSW: The helpdesk team of the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht has also taken up my case under Ticket Number 30118216.
Cooperation with the ADB RLP: I have submitted the data protection consent form to the Anti-Discrimination Office (ADB) of Rhineland-Palatinate 
to ensure the case is also documented at a professional and technical level.
Update January 21, 2026: My Case Reaches the State Parliament – Contacted by MP Michael Wäschenbach

A significant breakthrough: Member of the State Parliament Michael Wäschenbach (CDU), a member of the Health and Social Affairs Committee, 
has personally reached out to me. This comes ahead of the vote on the new State Anti-Discrimination Act (LADG) in Rhineland-Palatinate next week.
The Core: Mr. Wäschenbach inquired about the status of my petition (Ref. U 58/26) and the response from the authorities.
My Response: I informed him that the current system is failing, as the State Anti-Discrimination Office (LADS) admits its own lack of 
independence, and the Ministry (MWG) claims to have conducted reviews without ever interviewing the victim.
Significance: My case is now a real-world example in the debate over the new law. The question is whether the new legislation will 
finally ensure true independence and accountability, or remain a "paper tiger."
Update January 19, 2026: Ministry Claims Internal Review – I Demand Access to Records

The Ministry of Science and Health (MWG) has responded to my official submission. Their reply is a prime example of bureaucratic evasion.
The Claim: The Ministry asserts that my case was already "thoroughly reviewed" in 2023.
The Reality: At no point in 2023 was I interviewed or even contacted. A review conducted without the involvement of the affected person 
violates the fundamental right to be heard.
My Response: I have filed an official request for access to records under the State Transparency Act (LTranspG). If this "thorough 
review" exists, I demand to see the documentation.
Conclusion: The Ministry is attempting to hide the systematic failure of oversight bodies behind legal technicalities. I will persist 
until full transparency is achieved.

Update January 16, 2026: Acknowledgment from AfD Federal Headquarters

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has also confirmed receipt of my documentation and registered the case in their system.
Status: Automated receipt confirmation received.
Ticket ID: #78441180
Significance: This ensures that political parties across the entire spectrum have been officially notified regarding the 
systemic institutional failure.
Update January 15, 2026: Citizens' Commissioner Opens Case (U 58/26)

The Citizens' Commissioner (Ombudsperson) of Rhineland-Palatinate has officially accepted my petition.
File Number: U 58/26
Status: Under Review.
Context: The Commissioner is now reviewing my clarification that this is not a labor dispute, but a complaint about the ministries 
and oversight bodies systematically ignoring my whistleblower reports.
Update January 14, 2026: Official Case Number Issued by the Higher Administrative Court (OVG)

The Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate has officially registered my submission and assigned a formal case number. 
This is a crucial step in documenting institutional silence.
Status: Officially registered in the OVG system.

Case Number: 1402E26-OVG RP-0001

Significance: Although the court claims there is no "legal basis" for action at this time, the matter has been formally recorded in 
the state's judicial system. This confirms that my report on "systemic failure" is now part of the official record
Update January 12, 2026: Official Reference Number Issued by CSU

My petition regarding systemic institutional failure has been officially registered by the CSU (Christian Social Union).
Status: Officially Confirmed / Under Review.
Reference Number: CSU-222693-J8P2Y7
This step ensures that my complaint is formally documented in the party's database and cannot be overlooked. Every step is being 
fully recorded here for the public and future European authorities.

Update January 12, 2026: Response from the German Bundestag (Green Party)

Member of Parliament Sylvia Rietenberg (MdB) has responded to my petition. In her message, she cites the principle of the "Separation 
of Powers" and suggests that I consult a lawyer, stating that the legislative branch cannot provide legal advice.

My Analysis: This response is a clear attempt to evade political accountability. I did not request legal advice; I demanded parliamentary oversight. 
When state authorities (the executive branch) systematically remain silent in the face of discrimination, it is the duty of elected representatives 
to investigate this failure. If Parliament declares itself non-jurisdictional over the silence of government agencies, a dangerous 
vacuum is created in our Rule of Law.

Reaction from Hesse (Success of the Petition)
Status: Success through parliamentary referral.
The State Parliament of Hesse has responded to my petition. Since the jurisdiction for the systemic failure lies with the authorities in 
Rhineland-Palatinate, my case was officially forwarded to the Petitions Commissioner (Bürgerbeauftragte) of Rhineland-Palatinate for 
review and statement. This is a crucial step in increasing pressure on the responsible parties in Mainz.
Reaction from the State Anti-Discrimination Office RLP (Admission of Powerlessness)
Status: Institutional ignorance & lack of independence.
On January 10, 2026, I received a response from Ms. Mechthild Gerigk-Koch, Head of the State Anti-Discrimination Office (LADS). 
The response confirms the core points of my criticism:
No Independence: The office openly admits to being a department within the Ministry, stating it is "not independent" and has no authority 
to issue directives to other agencies.
Evasion through Statutes of Limitations: Instead of addressing the reported misconduct and institutional silence, the office relies on 
expired deadlines under the General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG).
Systemic Failure: The response clarifies that victims of state discrimination are left behind as soon as internal oversight bodies fail or remain silent.
My Conclusion: When a state anti-discrimination office admits it is not independent and hides behind formal deadlines regarding structural 
problems, the Rule of Law is at risk. This correspondence is further evidence of the need for an independent commission of inquiry.