94 Year Old Ursula Haverbeck Ordered Back to Prison – and her Rebuttal to this Order

Free Speech Monika

~ Exercising My Human Right to Speak Freely!

Monika Schaefer

Ursula Haverbeck Ordered Back to Prison – and her Rebuttal to this Order

  • 13 October 2022
  • by Monika Schaefer

Ursula Haverbeck, born on November 8, 1928, has been told she must turn herself in to the prison within two weeks of having received the order, to serve her one-year sentence. This would mean presenting herself at the gate by October 25, 2022. The nearly 94-year-old German woman is guilty of none other than asking inconvenient questions about “the Holocaust” and where those alleged murders took place. After years of asking questions and never receiving answers, she drew “politically incorrect” conclusions.

With the help of an online translator and a few of my own corrections to it, this is my best effort to present an English version of her letter which she submitted to the court authorities. Frau Haverbeck’s original letter in German follows the English version. If bilingual readers find errors in interpretation, please put those in the comments.

It is simply astonishing with what chutzpah the so-called “justice” system in Germany operates, in order to keep the official narrative going. Someone – I wonder who – must be very afraid to let the truth emerge about what really happened in Germany during that chapter in history commonly referred to as World War Two.

For previous articles about Ursula Haverbeck on my website: please see this and this, both articles from December 2020 and this one from November of 2020 just after she was released from her 2&1/2 years in prison.

Here is the letter from Ursula Haverbeck:


District Court Tiergarten
10548 Berlin
Business reference (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16)
Objection to your communication of 07.09.2022
Notification to the Regional Court of Berlin

October 11, 2022

Dear Sir or Madam,

The judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of December 4, 2020 cannot be final, as the trial took place without charge. As a defendant, I had no idea what the trial was about. I was released from prison 12 days before the trial, had to find my way around my house, where there was water damage, and only at 4 p.m. the day before the 1st day of the trial (November 17, 2020, 10 a.m.) received the message that I had to attend in Berlin. I arrived in Berlin completely tired out and confused. I also do not have the Charges. That is why I could not prepare. On the 2nd day of the trial, the judge told me that I did not have to appear on the 3rd date on December 4, 2020, as only two witnesses were to be heard. On December 4, 2020, however, these witnesses were not heard (although present), but in fact a verdict was announced, without my presence and without the Last Word of the Accused. I still do not know the verdict of this case. Could you be so kind as to send me the indictment and verdict? Thank you!

Thus, the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022 is also invalid, because it states there and in your communication of September 7, 2022 quite clearly that the first judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of October 16, 2017 in conjunction with the second judgment of December 4, 2020 had been combined to a total penalty. Without the second trial at the Tiergarten District Court, the overall sentence would not have been possible. The sentence of six months would have remained or the appeal would have had to be upheld: i.e. no penalty.

How is it at all possible that a “judge at the district court” (cover page of the judgment of April 1, 2022) makes a judgment in the regional court – in a complicated and publicly known case?
With this multitude of procedural errors, why was my appeal simply rejected without any justification? Even legal laymen can see that something is wrong.

I request the termination of the proceedings and the annulment of the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022. I would also like to point out that I am no longer in a position to serve a prison sentence due to my health.

Awaiting an early reply and
with kind regards,
~Ursula Haverbeck ******************************** Here is the original letter in German from Ursula Haverbeck to the District Court and to Berlin. ********************************

Amtsgericht Tiergarten
10548 Berlin

Geschäftszeichen (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16)
Einspruch gegen Ihre Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022

Nachrichtlich an das Landgericht Berlin


Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

das Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 04.12.2020 kann nicht rechtskräftig sein, da der Prozeß ohne Anklage stattfand. Ich hatte als Angeklagte keine Ahnung, worauf sich das Verfahren bezog. Ich bin 12 Tage vor dem Prozeß aus der Haft entlassen worden, mußte mich im meinem Haus zurechtfmden, wo ein Wasserschaden war, und bekam erst am Vortag zum 1. Prozeßtag (17.11.2020, 10 Uhr) um 16 Uhr die Mitteilung, daß ich mich in Berlin einzufinden hätte. Ich kam völlig übernächtigt in Berlin an und war vollständig verwirrt. Ich habe auch keine Anklage. Daher konnte ich mich auch nicht vorbereiten. Am 2. Prozeßtag sagte mir der Richter, daß ich zum 3. Termin am 04.12.2020 nicht erscheinen müsste, da nur noch zwei Zeugen zu vernehmen wären. Am 04.12.2020 wurden aber diese Zeugen nicht vernommen (obgleich anwesend), tatsächlich dann aber ein Urteil verkündet, ohne meine Anwesenheit und ohne das letzte Wort der Angeklagten. Ich kenne das Urteil dieses Verfahrens bis heute nicht. Könnten Sie so freundlich sein, mir Anklage und Urteil zuzusenden? Danke!

Damit ist auch das Urteil des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022 hinfällig, denn es heißt dort und in Ihrer Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022 ganz eindeutig, daß das erste Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 16.10.2017 in Verbindung mit dem zweiten Urteil vom 04.12.2020 zu einer Gesamtstrafe verbunden worden sei. Ohne das zweite Verfahren am Amtsgericht Tiergarten wäre die Gesamtstrafenbildung gar nicht möglich gewesen. Es wäre bei der Strafe von sechs Monaten geblieben oder es hätte der Berufung statt gegeben werden müssen: keine Strafe.

Wie ist es überhaupt möglich, daß eine ,,Richterin am Amtsgericht” (11. Deckblatt des Urteils vom 01.04.2022) ein Urteil des Landgerichts fällt – in einem komplizierten und öffentlich bekannten Verfahren?

Bei dieser Vielzahl von Verfahrensfehlem: Warum wurde meine Revision einfach verworfen, ohne jede Begründung? Da können selbst juristische Laien erkennen, daß etwas nicht stimmt.

Ich beantrage die Einstellung des Verfahrens und die Aufhebung des Urteils des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022. Zudem weise ich daraufhin, daß ich mich heute gesundheitlich nicht mehr in der Lage sehe, eine Haftstrafe anzutreten.

In Erwartung einer baldigen Antwort und

mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Ursula Haverbeck

Married Couple Sentenced For Migrant Critical Facebook Group

Married Couple Sentenced For Migrant Critical Facebook Group

A German couple were taken to court and sentenced after they created a Facebook group that criticised migrants and the government’s mass migration policy.

The couple, who live in the German town of Vierkirchen, stood accused of inciting hatred toward migrants via the Facebook group that the pair had created called the “Anti-refugee movement” (AFB). The group is said, by the court, to have been a clear incitement against migrants and as a result both 27-year-old Peter M. and his 26-year-old wife Melanie M. were found guilty of hate speech, Merkur reports.

The statements on the Facebook group did not seem to contain anything overtly nationalistic or Nazi-inspired, but rather expressed deep concern about the situation in Germany relating to mass migration.

According to the court, the page, which has been taken down, in its first post stated: “The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk,” which along with a German flag as the groups profile photo, was enough to bring the couple to court for hate speech.

The group amassed around 900 followers in the two months that it was active. The beginning of the end for the group happened when a user reported the page to Facebook, who have been upfront about cooperating with the German government incensoring speech they deem as critical of migrants.

The Facebook user who reported the page took a further step and reported it to their local police station in Lübeck whereupon police were able to ascertain that the administrator of the page lived in Vierkirchen and handed the investigation over to the local police.

At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said: “One can not even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees.” Peter M. talked about how, in his role as an administrator of the group, he would weed out any pro-Nazi or radical remarks and delete such posts but since Facebook had deleted the page he couldn’t present the evidence to the court.

The judge in the case was unforgiving in his verdict on the site saying that “the description of the group is a series of generalisations with a clear right-wing background”. After sentencing Peter M. to a nine month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 the judge said: “I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail.”

The case bears similarities to other cases where Facebook and the German government have shut down pages critical of migrants. A 16-year-old girl who complained that she feared for her safety in a video posted to Facebook had her page taken down, and police in Berlin raided the apartments of several Facebook and Twitter users for their anti-migrant comments online. PEGIDA leader Lutz Bachmann was also taken to court over comments he made on Facebook and found guilty of hate speech.