And So It Begins: "Söring v. Hammel", 3 June 2022, Landgericht Frankfurt, 12:00, Bldg. A, Room 123
Jens Söring, for some reason, apparently wants an open public debate about why people might think he could be dangerous. I'm happy to oblige!
[Google-Übersetzung hier.]
Jens Söring’s website has a new section called “Cancel Culture” (g), in which he complains that people have contacted sponsors of events where he has been invited to speak. I’ve seen a few of these complaints. Generally, the writers usually simply ask that the audience be presented with both sides of the story — not just Söring’s innocence claims. I’ve sent a few like that myself. Söring thinks these polite emails are “cancel culture”.
Yet behind the scenes, Söring and the lawyers at Beutler Grulert Brandt (BGB), the law firm where Söring’s personal friend Stefan Grulert is a partner, have apparently worked out a strategy. They’ve sent cease-and-desist letters to people and organizations who have been critical of Söring’s innocence claims. Of course, I got one of these letters — frankly, I would have been offended if I hadn’t. I’m not the only one who’s been targeted by cease-and-desist letters and other tactics, but, so far, I’m the only one who has decided to go public with this fact. And why not? I’m delighted to have a chance to defend my work in a court of law.
I leave it to the reader to decide which is a more genuine form of cancel culture: A polite letter, or a lawsuit threat. Of course, you probably won’t get answers from Jens Söring about any of this, because Team Söring’s campaign is happening behind the scenes. On his Instagram and Facebook channels, Söring posts nothing but cheerful tidbits about helping friends move or getting his drivers’ license (good luck!).
Here’s how the lawsuit against me started: On 22 April 2022, Jens Söring’s lawyer from BGB Law served me with a cease-and-desist letter (Abmahnung). The subject was a blog post from 10 April: “Is Jens Söring Dangerous? A Pro and Contra”. Go have a look at it. I thought that post was a pretty balanced and informative analysis of the question. My judgment, after evaluating the pros and cons, was that the risk Jens Söring would commit another violent act was “very, very low”.
Söring was apparently not satisfied with that (he even objected that I said the risk was “not zero”!), so he had his lawyer (not Grulert) send me a cease and desist letter (Abmahnung) threatening me with a lawsuit, naming a Streitwert (amount in dispute) of €40,000.1 The lawyer also demanded I pay €1,700 in his legal fees and sign a declaration that I would take down the blog post and not repeat any of the statements he objected to. This is the standard format for cease-and-desist letters, of which I’ve translated hundreds.
Specifically, the letter complained that I shouldn’t have said: (1) that it can’t be ruled out that Söring might be a future danger under certain circumstances, that (2) his previous murder convictions could count against him in court if he committed another crime in Germany, and that (3) that Söring is single and has no children, since that violates his privacy.
A cease-and-desist letter in Germany is only a prelude to a later lawsuit. If you respond to the cease-and-desist letter by agreeing to take down the comments, then nothing more happens. If you don’t agree to take down the comments, the plaintiff can (but doesn’t have to) file an Antrag auf eine einstweilige Verfügung, or motion for a temporary injunction. These are actually used mainly in patent and copyright cases, but can also be used in libel and defamation cases.
Of course, I didn’t touch the blog post. It is an informed, fair-minded analysis of an important public issue by me, one of the the world’s leading experts on the case of Jens Söring. It answers a question put to me by dozens of people since 2018. It contains no insults or defamation, and is squarely protected by Article 5 of the German Basic Law, which protects robust and open public debate. And as you can see, the letter hasn’t done anything to deter me from discussing the case — in fact, it helped convince me to create this Substack, which is growing daily (thanks!).
In fact, I at first thought the cease-and-desist letter might be some kind of misunderstanding or mistake (leaked internal draft? Someone hit “send” on the wrong email address?) or peculiar joke. This sort of thing has happened before. After all, I found out that a major German news outlet had launched an investigation into my background because the journalist who commissioned the investigation accidentally sent me the email that was meant for the investigator. That’s a story for a later post! Naturally, the investigation didn’t turn up anything, otherwise you might have read about my scandalous past in the pages of…a certain German news outlet.
I wrote back to Söring’s lawyer, asking him whether he really meant to go through with this. Had he read the millions of words Söring has written about his case over the decades? Was he aware of all the attacks Söring has launched against the people who brought him to justice? Had he listened to the podcast “Das System Söring”:
… in which two people who know Söring and the case well stated that they believed he could still be dangerous right now under the right set of circumstances? Has he read Söring’s murder confessions? His courtroom testimony? His English-language and German-language interviews? The infamous December 1984 letter? The trial of Elizabeth Haysom? Did he genuinely believe this lawsuit was in Söring’s best interests?
The lawyer apparently thinks so, because he indeed filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on 5 May 2022. Interestingly, he dropped two of the main claims in the cease-and-desist letter: (1) that it was wrong to claim Söring’s previous murder convictions could be considered during sentencing if he committed a new crime in Germany (they can); and (2) that it invaded Söring’s privacy for me to state that he was single and had no children. Söring’s lawyer seems to have been unaware that Söring eagerly discusses his private life in public: He even told Wolfgang Heim that he might start using a dating app.
I must say, in my view, dropping two of the three claims in your cease-and-desist letter isn’t a very promising beginning to a lawsuit. It seems very unlikely that Söring’s lawyer is as familiar with the case as I am. I fear this person is going to learn many facts about his client for the first time in an open public courtroom proceeding. Take it from me, as a fellow lawyer — this is not a pleasant experience.
In any case, we’re headed for court! The Frankfurt Regional Court has ordered a hearing for 3 June 2022 at 12:00 (Ort: Building A, Heiligkreuzgasse 34, Room 123). This is pretty standard in these cases, and it’s a good sign: the judge is interested in hearing both sides before ruling. I will obviously show up in person. I’m looking forward to it: I’ve been in German courtrooms many times, but only as a spectator or interpreter, never as an actual party to a case.
The hearing probably won’t be very exciting — German court hearings are rarely very dramatic. Nevertheless, if the Court invites me to explain myself, I am eager to do so, and will come prepared with plenty of research. I am confident I will be able to present the judge with thorough background information and a convincing justification for my legal position. Whether I’ll win is anyone’s guess — no competent lawyer ever predicts the outcome of a lawsuit before it even begins. However, I’ve studied German constitutional law for years, and believe my statements are covered by Article 5 of the German Basic Law. I trust the German legal system — it’s not perfect, because no system is — but it’s generally fair and efficient and reaches reasonable outcomes.
In any case, the hearing is public, so if you’re in the area and want to see how a German court proceeding goes, feel free to show up!
To clear up a common misconception, this amount isn’t a damages claim, it’s a somewhat arbitrary number which is just inserted into cease-and-desist letters to satisfy procedural requirements.
'Back-Bending Diplomacy' was the title of an Op-Ed that Jens Soering had published in the University of Virginia student newspaper The Cavalier Daily.
Soering wrote: "See, it's like this. My father is a West German diplomat, so I'm sort of German, too. At least that's what my passport says. I've not lived there much myself. That's because my father is a German diplomat, see?
Anyway, when you are a diplomat, wherever you are, you are always representing your country. So you've got to watch out what you do.
What you do when you are German is be quiet, unobtrusive. Because if you do anything wrong, everyone says "See, he's being a Nazi again." And if everyone thinks you are a Nazi, they won't buy German cars, and if they don't buy Volkswagens, West Germany's economy will collapse, and if West Germany's economy collapses, NATO breaks up, and if NATO breaks up, the Russians will take over. All because you, a German diplomat, misbehaved. At least that's the way my dad explains it, and he went to diplomat's school.
Naturally, it follows that if a diplomat represents his country at all times. so does his family. (I don't understand this either, but my dad says so.) That means I've got to be unobtrusive, too. My dad interprets this to mean, among other things, that I should not write editorials because editorials express opinions, and if someone has an opinion, someone else will surely differ. If I, as a German, differ with someone about Germany, it's because I'm a Nazi. We are back at the no-Volkswagen-sales equals World War III equation.
So I am going to write an editorial without expressing opinions. Just facts and then some questions, okay? No one gets upset, and please buy German cars.
# There was recently reported theft of a "priceless" Nazi swastika flag from Culbreth Theatre. The U.S. is by far the largest market for Nazi memorabilia. If the Nazis are the bad guys, why is the demand for their flags so high that they are considered priceless? Are there people who collect trinkets and artifacts from murderers in jail?
# A few weeks ago, a local news article appeared recounting some of the arguments heard at a panel debate about abortion. As usual, the pro-lifers compared abortion clinics "to concentration camps in Nazi Germany." If an abortion clinic is like a concentration camp, does that mean that all women who have had abortions are war criminals? Does the government that legalized abortions consist of Nazis? Did females and senators possibly steal the flag from Culbreth?
#President Reagan will shortly make a trip to West Germany. There he will visit a cemetery for "Nazi soldiers." Many people are upset because they see this as a tribute to Nazism. They feel that Reagan should visit a concentration camp instead. The soldiers in the cemetery loved their country, fought a war and lost it. Some committed atrocities. Others did not. If the President should not visit their cemetery, should he be forbidden to pay his respects at the Vietnam memorial, too? For that matter, should he be allowed at any war memorial? Finally, why must heads-of-state visit cemeteries and concentration camps all the time? Why not go to a nice castle, have some wine and take a new Porsche for a ceremonial test-drive once in a while? Or is murder so fascinating that we steal the flags of people who perfected it and refer to these same people inappropriately at abortion discussions?"
This editorial was published in early April,1985, before the end of the spring semester.
It was published AFTER Jens Soering had murdered Derek and Nancy Haysom!
When was it written? I don't know. But I find it chilling. There is a facade of civility and charm here which is pure deception. There is no trace of remorse here, as if the writer does not understand ordinary human emotions. It is sociopathic and it is also sophomoric. I have been to Oradour sur Glane and there were members of the 'Das Reich' division, the perpetrators, buried at Bitberg. There is no equivalence between the millions dead in the Bloodlands of .the East and Vietnam.
Or, to put it another way--I will ask the reader. Why do you think Jens Soering wrote this editorial?
And why, when he was commended on the article did he respond with a short laugh and a grin, and say: "I am a Nazi."
He actually did that.
I was told that he made this remark by at least two persons. One source was Jim Farmer and another was Soering's roommate. They were startled by it and shocked. They remembered it and it will be remembered to this day by quite a few people.
Another thing that students said about him. He was very interested in power.
I think Jens Soering has a personality disorder. I think he is a scofflaw. I, personally, saw him at MCC when I was visiting a man on Death Row. He was agreeable, telling me how to work the coke machine. He sat at a small table holding the hand of an older woman the entire time, from the Liberty Baptist Church prison outreach program, I assume. It was as if they were communing. They sat very close together. Frankly, I thought that was a little bit odd and I could not have done that, particularly for that length of time. If I were ever around him I would stay very alert. I know that Scotland Yard detectives have debated whether or not he is a psychopath.
I think Germany has a little problem with this guy. He could get into politics.
J.S. erhoffte sich sicherlich, dass Sie, auf Grund eines nicht sicheren Ausgangs der Verhandlung,das Handtuch werfen.Ich schätze,dass es mehr bedarf,einen Mann wie Herrn Hammel,zum Schweigen zu bringen.Ich vertraue auf unser Rechtssystem,um auch diese Machenschaften von J.S. ,zu beenden.