I am a severely disabled migrant in Germany who is currently facing deportation because of the action of an unlawful judge and the German judiciary protects him.

My name is ]withheld due to threat of life]. I was prosecuted in Tübingen, Germany, accused of resisting the police — in the public prosecutor's office in Tübingen. I successfully defended myself against all but one charge. I appealed the last conviction, and together with my lawyer, we submitted a detailed legal challenge.

At the appeal hearing in the Tübingen Regional Court, Judge Dr. Allmendinger heard our case. We presented evidence, questioned witnesses, and made our legal arguments in full. But to our shock, I was convicted again — and the reason given in court seemed legally insufficient.

We immediately filed another appeal to the higher regional court. But when we received the written judgment, we were horrified.

Judge Dr. Allmendinger had altered, omitted, and misrepresented major parts of the witness statements. He even changed my own testimony. The reason he gave in court for my conviction was different from what appeared in the written decision. It was as if my lawyer had never been present. The record was falsified.

I was devastated. I called the judge's office the very next day. He told me that my lawyer should write to him and he will respond. We submitted an 8-page letter, clearly documenting the discrepancies between the hearing and the written judgment. We never received any response.

In Germany, there are no transcripts or audio recordings in higher courts. Nothing was recorded. And because of this, there is no legal way to prove what really happened in court. The judiciary assumes judges act with integrity and summarize facts correctly. But what if they don't? In revision, higher courts must accept the lower court's findings unless a legal error is clearly apparent. Judge Allmendinger's actions destroyed our ability to challenge the verdict.

We later learned that this judge previously worked as a public prosecutor in the same Tübingen office where the alleged crime occurred — a clear conflict of interest.

In desperation, I went to the district court to peacefully protest. Because of my severe disability, I was slow to walk down the stairs when asked to leave. A court security officer pushed me down the stairs. I fell, hit my head, and almost lost my life. I have a recording of this.

I almost attempted suicide. If not for the actions of a close friend, I might not be here today. I don’t want to relive the trauma or the chronic depression that forces me to rely on medication just to sleep. But I have to speak out—because I fear that Dr. Allmendinger could do the same to others.

My final appeal was rejected for “no legal error.” The case is now before the German Federal Constitutional Court. Germany’s Basic Law contains many protections for individual rights—but how can migrants, minorities, and vulnerable people defend those rights when they can’t prove what was said? The Federal Constitutional Court says everyone has rights, regardless of race or status. They must also be given a real opportunity to fight for them.

I am not the only one. Many lawyers I have spoken with confirm that this often happens — where judges can do whatever they want, and defendants have no meaningful way to challenge them. There are no records. No accountability. No remedies.

It is important to reference a statement by former Stuttgart Regional Court judge, Frank Fahsel, who said:

"I was a judge at the Stuttgart Regional Court from 1973 to 2004, and during that time I experienced unbelievable and countless violations of the law and perversions of justice organized by the system, which could not be challenged because they conformed to the system. I have encountered countless judges and public prosecutors who could simply be called 'criminal.' Yet, they were, and in some cases still are, sacrosanct—untouchable—because they acted 'per Ordre de Mufti' (i.e., on orders from above) or were covered by the system for the sake of their reputation... It is not possible to take action against such colleagues in the justice system because the system protects itself from being exposed."

The German judiciary protects judges — not the public.

If a judge is biased, racist, or dishonest, you are powerless. The system makes sure of it.

Why hasn't there been any response from organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Council, the European Court of Human Rights, or other international watchdogs on this issue? Is there a particular reason why it hasn’t gained attention. Additionally, it seems that major international media outlets are also silent on the matter."

I am calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council, the European Court of Human Rights, and all international watchdogs to act. These institutions often speak out against injustice in smaller countries — but remain silent when a major Western democracy like Germany systematically denies minorities and disabled individuals the right to a fair trial.

This petition is not just about me. It is about the many others — especially migrants and minorities — who are silenced, discredited, and convicted in a system that refuses to record the truth.

The right to a fair trial is not optional. It's not cultural. It is universal. It must apply to everyone.

Please sign and share this petition.

This has to stop.

(These are not unfounded as there are lots of evidence and witnesses, you can reach me at kelvinonue@gmail.com)