43rd Day of Trial – Grimm’s Fairy Tales More Scientific Than the Charges – Defense Demands Acquittal

The press team is publishing in full the closing statement by Dr. Reinhard Löffler, CDU member of the Baden-Württemberg state parliament, and Michael Ballweg’s final statement.

“Grimm’s Fairy Tales Are an Encyclopedia of Science”

Dr. Löffler summed up the defense’s position:

“Compared to the prosecution’s assumptions, insinuations, and speculations, Grimm’s fairy tales are an encyclopedia of science.”

He criticized the political dimension of the trial, the exaggerated legal and tax accusations, and the widespread prejudice by media and authorities.

His conclusion:

“I demand an acquittal and compensation for 279 days of unjust pretrial detention.”

Ballweg: “I Am Innocent”

In his final statement, Michael Ballweg reaffirmed his commitment to fundamental rights, even in times of crisis:

“I am innocent. My tax advisory firm confirmed that I made a loss of €80,000.”

He thanked the observers and encouraged everyone to face challenges bravely – even in the face of state repression.

Outlook

The verdict in the case against Michael Ballweg is expected on Thursday, July 31, 2025.

Attachments to the press release:

• Closing statement by Dr. Reinhard Löffler (July 22, 2025)
• Final statement by Michael Ballweg (July 22, 2025)
  
  

---

Plea by Dr. Reinhard Löffler

Regional Court Stuttgart, July 22, 2025 Spoken word prevails

Honorable Court, esteemed representatives of the prosecution,

The 61 men and women of the Parliamentary Council who, more than 75 years ago, gave this country a new constitution—our Basic Law—had a clear goal: no more dictatorship, no more arbitrary state action. Instead, binding all state power to the rule of law. The state must guarantee human dignity and ensure freedom and equality.

Freedom of Opinion and the Dialectical Process

Our constitution does not envision a night-watchman state, but a society where everyone may freely express their opinion—in word, in writing, in assemblies, and at demonstrations. It does not matter whether the opinion is right or wrong, sensible or absurd, comfortable or uncomfortable.

The Basic Law wants a dialectical process in society that politics absorbs and implements in parliaments. Governments have always struggled with uncomfortable opinions—from protests against the Vietnam War, to nuclear plants like Wyhl and Brokdorf. But never has public discourse been as emotionally charged as during the confrontation with COVID measures.

Corona Measures and Their Consequences

There is no doubt: government interventions to contain COVID led to the most severe restrictions of basic rights since the founding of the Federal Republic—initially based only on administrative instructions. Legal and medical evaluations were highly controversial. Even the Minister of Health said, “We will have to forgive each other for a lot.”

Social Impact and Political Marginalization

While the health risks of the virus were real, the state’s response led to social isolation, bans on contact, and loss of livelihood. People were not even allowed to accompany loved ones in death. An unproven vaccine was mandated, and those who refused it were socially ostracized.

The Role of the Accused

We now know many measures were wrong—legally and medically. People were left alone with their fear. It takes exceptional people to stand up to the state and demand their rights, even in a crisis.

The accused is such a person. In April 2020, he founded Querdenken-711, which quickly became Germany’s largest non-parliamentary opposition. They protested for democracy and constitutional values—even during the pandemic. They demanded debate and criticized the authoritarian hygiene regulations. From small vigils to over 500,000 in Berlin in August 2020.

Reaction to the Movement

The government didn’t deal well with dissent. Querdenkers were labeled conspiracy theorists, esoterics, extremists. The newspaper ZEIT called the accused the “number one enemy of the state.” The Spiegel journalists couldn’t stop saying “Reichsbürger.” No debate—just exclusion.

Structure and Funding of the Movement

This did not harm the movement. More and more Querdenken groups were formed in cities across the country, and the defendant acted as a connector. To finance the demonstrations, the defendant called on people to make gifts. More than ten thousand followed this call, resulting in over 1.2 million euros being made available to the defendant and the Querdenken movement—money that went into organizing demonstrations and was intended for future large-scale events.

Prosecution and Detention

Then came the second phase. The public prosecutor accused the defendant of deceiving thousands of people about how the funds were used. The allegation: more than €575,000 were supposedly used for private purposes and shuffled between personal accounts. All of the defendant’s personal assets were frozen. The charges were fraud and money laundering. A house search and pre-trial detention followed—allegedly due to flight risk.

According to the prosecution, the defendant had packed his bags and was preparing to flee to Costa Rica. His belongings were supposedly in a shipping container, ready for departure. Michael Ballweg was detained for nine months in the Stammheim prison. A reporting requirement and confiscation of his passport would have sufficed, but his detention also weakened the movement financially. In reality, the container contained monitors, computers, and office materials—but no household goods, as was confirmed in court.

Criticism of the Investigating Judge

Several appeals against the detention were unsuccessful. The investigating judge at the Stuttgart District Court, whom we heard as a witness, had the defendant chained to a table leg like a dog for several hours during the hearing, but otherwise did not appear to have a thorough understanding of the case files. The defense strongly criticized the shackling during interrogation. That had little to do with human dignity or due process. I regret that the court let this slide—this must never become standard practice in our courts.

Assessment of the Indictment

The charges of fraud and money laundering were not admitted. Money laundering is defined as introducing assets from organized crime into the legal financial system to disguise their origin. Although banks are obligated to report suspected money laundering under the law—even without proof of the crime—the case gained traction only because the "founder of Querdenken" deposited and withdrew cash. Ultimately, the only charge left was attempted fraud, since the donors reportedly did not care what happened to the money.

Tax Evasion Allegation

An allegation of attempted tax evasion was later added. The defendant was in pre-trial detention, all tax-relevant documents had been seized, and there’s no access to Elster (the digital tax portal) in prison. The deadline for filing the tax return passed during his imprisonment. We know since Al Capone that there’s always a tax angle—especially when the case has been so meticulously prepared.

Role of Ministries and Investigators

The Ministry of Finance and the regional tax office (OFD) were "alarmed"—as stated in an email. But why? Michael Ballweg had paid his taxes for years as a successful entrepreneur—and not small amounts. The tax investigators insisted on participating in the house search. They got in via a backdoor—“IT support” request—even though the police did not need such help, since their own specialists even train the tax investigators. The head of the "EG Kreuz" investigation group, who testified here, expressed surprise. A tax officer did find the defendant’s gym bag, which contained brochures about Costa Rica. Nothing incriminating was found on his computer.

Pre-Raid Briefing

There was a preparatory meeting regarding the house search. While it was initially concealed, a judicial officer later confirmed it here in court. There is even a written protocol of this meeting—unfortunately, we were not allowed to review it. It is also not part of the case files.

Income Tax, Tax Liability, and Taxation of Political Donations

The defendant is accused of evading income tax because he did not declare donations from his supporters. The supposed tax liability arises because, on advice from the tax office, the defendant registered a company for event marketing. The argument is that the donations should be attributed to the company. But one thing has nothing to do with the other. The donors wanted to support the political goals of the Querdenken movement—not the defendant's business.

To justify the tax liability, a witness from the regional tax office (OFD) cited a case where a pizza baker in Bavaria asked customers to donate money for a new oven. The tax court ruled those donations were business income.

I had expected the Stuttgart tax office to inform us whether the opponents of Stuttgart 21—who have been collecting donations for their Monday demonstrations for over 20 years—are also subject to income tax. Apparently not.

Donations to political parties and voter associations are even tax-privileged. Donations up to €6,000 reduce the donor’s tax burden. Parties themselves are not taxed—even though they sometimes fail to keep their promises.

Taxing donations used for organizing political assemblies under Article 8 of the German Constitution would be a violation of the right to freedom of assembly. Our Constitution does not allow that.

Tax Calculation and Review by the Tax Office

The court instructed the tax office to calculate the defendant’s tax debt for 2020 based on the court’s specifications. The result: Surprise—the defendant had overpaid by €200,000 in income tax.

The court made significant efforts to determine whether the defendant attempted to evade corporate, trade, or value-added tax. Even minor amounts—eight euros, eleven euros, and twenty-three euros—were examined in detail.

Legal Classification of Attempted Tax Evasion

According to Section 370 (2) of the German Fiscal Code in conjunction with Section 23 of the Criminal Code, attempted tax evasion is a criminal offense. Every criminal act goes through three stages:

• the non-punishable preparation phase,
• the attempt phase, where withdrawal can still lead to immunity,
• and the damage realization phase.

Once the damage has occurred, immunity can only be achieved through voluntary disclosure.

An attempt is committed when the individual begins to act directly toward achieving the offense. Subjectively, the person must have firm intent to commit tax evasion. They must know all the factual circumstances that fulfill the offense and understand that their actions could prevent the realization of a tax claim.

Objectively, they must have begun execution—meaning acts beyond mere preparation, such as:

• issuing false documents,
• incorrect accounting entries,
• falsifying business records,
• omitting assets,
• or submitting inaccurate tax forms.

However, if a taxpayer gives documents to their tax advisor and agrees to review them together before submission to the tax office, that remains a preparatory act.

That was the case here: The defendant and his tax advisor scheduled a meeting for June 29, 2022. The court has the email. We know the meeting never took place—because the defendant was arrested that same day.

If one can speak of an attempt at all, it never went beyond a non-punishable preparatory phase.

On the Attempted Fraud

Let’s turn to the alleged attempted fraud. According to the prosecution, the defendant supposedly turned Querdenken into a business model in order to collect donations that he could use for private purposes. He allegedly deceived the donors about this. That’s not how it happened, but let’s accept that premise for a moment.

Fraud is a classic intentional offense – there is no such thing as negligent fraud. The perpetrator must act with the intent to enrich himself or a third party by deceiving another. His intent must cover all elements of the offense: deception, inducing error, disposal of assets, and financial loss.

In addition, there must be an intent to gain. The perpetrator must aim to obtain a financial benefit. This intent to enrich must be established separately from intent.

Witness Testimonies and Documentation

Over the course of 42 trial days, we heard dozens of witnesses – sign language interpreters, paramedics, a seamstress. Not one stone was left unturned.

Many supporters helped in various ways with the organization and the demonstrations. We heard from all of them. Each received financial reimbursement from the defendant for expenses or travel costs. All invoices were submitted and paid by the defendant. Lodging and meals for helpers at the rallies were covered.

We’ve learned that a large demonstration can easily cost a six-figure sum. There is no evidence that the defendant diverted money for personal use.

If the prosecutor now presents a list of supposed fraud cases, I would counter that the Higher Regional Court (OLG) already dismissed those.

Compared to your speculation, insinuations, and assumptions, Grimm’s fairy tales are an encyclopedia of science.

Everyday Expenses, Crypto Assets, and the Prosecutor’s Attitude

The chamber even inquired meticulously about what was eaten and drunk during regular meetings on Werfelstraße. Coconut water became a “running gag.”

There is no indication of where, how, or even if the defendant allegedly diverted donation funds for private purposes.

I still maintain: it’s easier to tell the eye color of the ox in a stew than to find fraudulent intent in these witness statements.

And yes, there is still money from the donation fund. The defendant invested it – including in cryptocurrency. Why not? The banks canceled his accounts for flimsy reasons.

I was shocked that the prosecutor advised the defendant, after he complained about the asset freezes and his lack of personal funds, to simply use the crypto capital – after all, it had increased significantly since 2020.

Was that incitement to commit a crime?

But if the defendant is allowed to use those crypto funds – why is the prosecution charging him?

Conclusion

Honorable Court, a long trial is coming to an end. Thank you for your patience and fair conduct – despite my teasing, and despite the prosecution’s motion to disqualify all professional judges after a legal discussion with the chamber. A unique event in my career.

The prosecution’s accusations have melted like snow in the sun.

I request acquittal and compensation for 279 days of unjust pre-trial detention. Thank you.

Dr. Reinhard Löffler 
Closing Argument, July 22, 2025 – Stuttgart Regional Court 
Spoken word prevails

---

Final Statement by Michael Ballweg

Regional Court Stuttgart, July 22, 2025 Spoken word prevails

Madam Presiding Judge, Honorable Court, Respected Prosecutors, Dear trial observers,

I consciously chose a silent defense in this trial. In a proceeding that, from my point of view, was politically motivated from the start, it was important to me to focus on the evidence – not on how my words might be interpreted.

Even during a pandemic, fundamental rights must apply. They must serve as beacons in times of crisis. That is what I stood for, and what I will continue to stand for.

The Querdenken movement showed during demonstrations what really matters in difficult times:

• integrity,
• humanity,
• and courage.

Arbitrariness thrives only in the dark. That is why I sincerely thank all the trial observers and the media who have reported and continue to report on this case.

I have learned a lot throughout this trial. Let this also be a source of courage to others – everything passes, and we should face the challenges that life presents us.

I am innocent. My tax advisory firm confirmed that I made a loss of 80,000 euros.

I thank the court for its thorough review of the case.

I firmly believe: 
The future belongs to those who follow their hearts 
– no matter what the critics say.

Because it is the outsiders who change the world 
and make a real, lasting difference.

Thank you.

Regional Court Stuttgart, July 22, 2025 Spoken word prevails