Perhaps the prosecutor, Eva Firoozi, should have been a novelist. Maybe she would have been one of those best selling authors who, due to their political correctness and lack of humor, spoil the pleasure of reading, but at least she would have done less damage. It must have been more or less intentional that the dream team from the Munich attorney generals office (General-SA) Reinhard Röttle and the leader and founder of the ZET, Georg Freutsmiedl, hired such an employee.

The new boss of the ZET, Gabriele Tilmann, also didn’t just hire this social justice warrior just to fill the quota for women in office. No, in Munich, in all of Bavaria actually, there “is no room for anarchists, squatters, etc” according to the ever humorous Franz Joseph Strauß. And if these anarchists don’t leave the city of their own accord, then we need creative employees like Eva Firoozi. Much to the regret of the anarchists of course. Not because we take Eva Firoozi particularly seriously, or are even scared of her. No, we’re just sick of reading her absurdly poorly written indictments. They are filled with plot holes; the logic of the story doesn’t add up, and the characters are two-dimensional. You don’t have to be a student of literature to see that.

If Mrs. General-SA Firoozi had just been a novelist we could have just ignored her books in the bookstore. As prosecutor however, she has somehow managed to force us to read her creations (never more than 31 pages) as bed-time reading. The General-SA has decided: she has charged Manuel with the arson of a rail vehicle, six concrete mixers, one wheel loader, a conveyor belt with a silo, and an attempted arson of a windmill. In addition he is charged with multiple thefts and for association with the “Hetzblatt gegen den Windpark” [agitational paper against the wind park]. Nathalie too has been charged, although only with theft. And Eva Firoozi promises that if her motion to appeal the district court’s decision not to reopen the “Zündlumpen” case succeeds, she will combine this case with the larger case. Or was it the other way around? Who cares.

Yeah yeah, again it’s a bunch of hot air and a lot of blabla. We’ve heard it already: Manuel is “a member of the extreme left anarchist scene” and “rejects any form of state rule,” etc. Apparently he’s a primitivist too. Why? Based on the fact that he “lived in a self built camp in the woods.” Anyway, most of the plot is already known and can be found in the text “Rebellion in times of total police surveillance” and other texts about repression in Munich. It would be a waste of time to repeat it here.

But why only charge Manuel with arson and not Nathalie? Why only in these three cases instead of previously six? The dogs are at fault. Specifically so called scent differentiating dogs. This is where it gets truly odd.

Like many of the investigation techniques of the German cops, the use of scent differentiating dogs has a foul smelling history. No, this time we’re not talking about the KZ [concentration camps]. Scent differentiating dogs were used extensively by the Stasi to search for members of the opposition. They would forcibly obtain a sample during an interrogation by swabbing a clothe in the genital area and save these in a kind of preserve jar. Or they would break into peoples homes and place a cotton cloth on their clothes. Wait a minute, didn’t the KHK Wolf and the MEK do this in Manuel and Nathalie’s hut in the woods? They used to call this pseudoscience in the BRD. At least until the fall of the wall. Especially in the last years there was always some pseudo scientist with their strangely named canine companion that claimed that their dog could sniff out something, for which no other evidence existed. Now they claim that Manuel’s body odor is on some “evidence.”

The investigation file states that the surveillance team and the aforementioned KHK Wolf from K92, who took over this Stasi assignment, stuffed some kind of handkerchief in shoes, clothes, etc, which they relatively randomly assigned to either Nathalie or Manuel, found in our home.

Then they gave these to some dogs who “indicated” that the smell matched the scent on “evidence.” This we knew already. New comparative scent samples were obtained on the day of Nathalie and Manuel’s arrest, when a so called dog handler roughly rubbed a piece of cloth around on her body, which the cop Florian Obermeier referred to as a “free bodywash.” And now it gets odd. In her indictment, Eva Firoozi writes, that on 03.03.2025 the dogs in the “laboratory” of the service dog unit of Mittelfranken established “a connection between the scent on the evidence and the scent on the acused.” But then she has to admit that: “the video recording of the scent differentiating dogs in action can no longer be found.” This is the case for Manuel. The super sniffers couldn’t even establish a connection to Nathalie in the first place. We can easily imagine how General-SA Firoozi must have raged when KOK Jochen Meyer, who is usually not shy, humbly but matter of factually, confessed to her that the videos “got lost in the mail.” Luckily this dubious process is easily repeated. The results might differ a bit in the details, but for Eva Firoozi it is reason enough to file a case against Manuel.

The anarchist attitude of the two (yes, anarchists do in fact reject the state Mrs. Firoozi) is established and embellished using fragments of conversation taken out of context, obtained during the months long surveillance of Nathalie and Manuel’s hut, as well as quotations from drafts of texts, emails, etc. The page long lists of evidence lull you right to sleep.

On 12.01.2026 the indictment was presented to judge Dr. Blaschke in the third criminal division of the first district court of Munich.

Here it will be decided whether or not this case will be included in the main case. This same judge previously deemed the wiretapping of living quarters without a warrant not to be illegal because according “to the legal principle ex injuria ius non oritur” the occupant of the house “is not entitled to article 13 of the constitution” and helpfully recommended that those who do not wish to be illegally surveilled “file a clear injunction against all state agencies.” It must be a lot of fun for this judge to go through all of the audio surveillance tapes that have made Nathalie and Manuel’s life into a matter of public and voyeuristic state interest. Those who have chosen for jurisprudence have earned this privilege.

We in any case will leave the jurists to their legalism and would rather stick to our anarchism.