What's it Like to get Sued for Libel in Germany?

A free preview of Chapter 35 of my book about Jens Söring!

Hello all — working on a German translation of he book and on a YouTube video about the case, which is one heck of a learning experience, but fun.

In the meantime, here’s one of the later chapters of my book about the Jens Söring case, which you can order anywhere on Amazon. It’s pretty good! Readers are giving it nice reviews, many say they read it quickly in a day or two.

In this chapter, I describe what it was like to get sued by Jens Söring for libel (and win). I hope you enjoy it and look forward to your comments!

Chapter 35: The Libel Lawsuit

After the last episode of The Söring System went live in early April 2022, everyone involved –  the producers of the podcast, Dr. Alice Brauner and Johanna Behre, me, Terry Wright, and Eva Beck – wondered how Söring would respond. Söring still had supporters in Germany, although their ranks had dwindled. Friends and colleagues often asked me: “Aren’t you afraid? After all, you’ve made a killer angry. And all of his fans as well.” I dismissed the issue, since I doubted Söring was a threat. However, I was not so sure about his supporters. The more people expressed concern for my safety, the more I wondered whether I might actually be in some sort of danger.

I decided to address the issue in a blog post called “Is Jens Söring Dangerous? A Pro and Contra,” first published on 10 April 2022. First came contra: Söring had shown no violent tendencies in prison or since his release. Violent tendencies in all males decline rapidly after age 40, owing to lower testosterone levels and the tendency of even criminals to settle down as middle age approaches. Söring had his hands full building a new life. Further, as a paroled lifer, he had everything to lose from misconduct. His parole required him to display “uniform good behavior”. If he violated that condition, his parole could be revoked. He would never be returned to Virginia, but he would have an arrest warrant, which is a bad look and might entail legal complications. Further, any violence would shatter the peaceable image he was cultivating in the German media.

On the other hand, my study of the case had raised red flags. First of all, Söring had murdered the Haysoms. There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who are capable of stabbing two people to death in cold blood, and those who are not. Söring was also vindictive towards real or perceived enemies and capable of acting without considering the consequences. Söring had been fascinated by violence at one point in his life. According to Elizabeth, he had hatched plots to kill numerous people, considered killing a “nice occupation”, and harbored sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.

The most important factor in the “pro” column, I decided, was psychological pressure. Söring had proclaimed in late 2021 that he was on a crusade for “justice”: i.e., to have his innocence recognized. He inserted complaints about his conviction into every interview. His two Spiegel interviews from February 2020 and September 2021 revealed how important his innocence claims were to him. In 2020, he had noted that a major reason women showed romantic interest in him was that he was innocent. In 2021 he told the reporters, with lowered voice, that he wanted “to be liked”. Söring’s innocence claims were thus more than a tactic – they were a core feature of his identity.

And they were now crumbling around him. He had lost control of the narrative. Facts Team Söring had swept under the rug for decades were now openly discussed and debated. This, I wrote, must put Söring under psychological stress. Nevertheless, by the end of the post, I concluded that the “contra” factors outweighed the “pro” factors: “Who can be sure history won’t repeat itself, if the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable? I rate the chances as very, very low, but not zero.” I ended the post with tongue firmly in cheek: “So, gentle readers – if anything suspicious happens to me, you know where to begin the investigation.”

A few weeks later, on 22 April 2022, I received the kind of letter which strikes fear into the heart of every law-abiding German: an Abmahnung (warning), which in the U.S. or U.K. would be called a “demand letter” or a “cease and desist letter”. The letter to me came from a Hamburg law firm where Stephan Grulert was a partner. I recognized Grulert as the “Friend of Jens” who had been featured on the retracted Galileo feature about Söring. Grulert had delegated the Söring case to a junior associate whom I’ll call Simon. The letter accused me of defaming Söring by implying that he represented a danger to society and by suggesting that he was mentally ill. My blog post, Simon claimed, was a personal attack intended to stigmatize Söring and hinder his re-integration into German society.

I had also violated Söring’s privacy by noting that he had not yet married or had children (two factors statistically proven to reduce dangerousness). The letter also claimed that I had falsely claimed that if Söring committed an offense, his previous murder conviction could be used against him to enhance his sentence. The lawsuit named a damages figure (Streitwert) of €40,000 and demanded I pay attorneys’ fees of precisely €1,751.80. The letter sought an emergency injunction from a court forcing me to remove all of the offending statements from the post.

Most Germans don’t understand that the “damages” figure (€40,000) in a demand letter is a procedural technicality; it’s merely a lodestar value used to calculate court and attorneys’ fees. The huge amounts listed as Streitwert are used to intimidate naïve recipients; many conceded their case merely to avoid paying the huge fee listed in German demand letters. My experience within the German legal system had taught me that the language and the numbers in these demand letters are almost always exaggerated. The first thing you do when you get one is contact an attorney and have him or her parse the letter.

My lawyer was a friend named David Ziegelmayer, who lived in Cologne. Ziegelmayer, who specializes in intellectual-property and media law, wasn’t impressed by the demand letter. He had actually listened to the Söring System podcast. I had no desire to get involved in a legal struggle, so I asked David whether there was a way to short-circuit this lawsuit. He said there was: We could file a “Motion for Protection” (Schutzschrift). This would allow us to put our point of view before the court. Since Söring’s lawsuit requested an emergency injunction, we had only a few weeks to prepare the motion. I would provide the facts, David would address the law.

I began combing through my archive of case documents. The point was not to prove Söring was dangerous, the point was to show that my blog post was (1) a fair statement of opinion; (2) about a matter of public importance; (3) based on facts known to me. Of course, the primary fact I could call upon was that Söring had murdered two people. In most countries, that fact alone would have defused the lawsuit: What reputation did a convicted murderer have to defend? Yet German law is more forgiving, so I had to prove my right to discuss whether someone who had nearly decapitated two people might be dangerous. Most of the evidence I collected came from the millions of words Söring himself had published.

One thing that turned out to be more important than I had imagined was that Söring had not provided his own home address on his lawsuit. Instead, he had only provided the address of his law firm. While not illegal, this is permitted only in rare cases. The reason is it might hinder my ability to recover legal fees and damages. If I won the case and my lawyer sent the bill to Söring’s law firm, they could simply respond: “We’re not responsible for paying this judgment, Jens Söring is. Go look for him.” Since Germany has strict privacy laws and no national registry of addresses, finding him would be a huge hassle. As listeners to the Söring System learned, Söring had contemplated frustrating Elizabeth’s ability to sue him by registering under a false address.

We alerted the judges to the fact that Söring had not provided his home address, and requested that they order him to do so. As for the charge that I had violated Söring’s privacy by discussing his marital status, we pointed the judges to published interviews in which Söring had discussed his desire to find a partner. Was I correct in maintaining that Söring’s U.S. murder convictions could enhance his penalty in Germany if he were to commit a crime there? Yes, a criminal-defense lawyer friend of mine from Berlin affirmed; Söring’s lawyer had gotten the law wrong.

The case would be heard by a three-judge panel of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, who scheduled a hearing for 3 June 2022. The day before, Simon submitted a “Statement” about our Motion for Protection. Judging by the rhetoric, our Motion for Protection had hit a nerve. The Statement read as if Simon had just told Söring to start listing his grievances, then simply transcribed them. For example, Simon (Söring) was outraged that we had cited Elizabeth Haysom: “The poor state of the defendant’s sources is also shown by the use of the person of Elizabeth Haysom as ‘proof’”.

The italics were in the original; Simon apparently expected the court to share Söring’s spluttering outrage that I had dared cite statements from Elizabeth, who had “incriminated” Söring out of “self-interest”. Dr. Robert Showalter was described as “extremely shady”. As for me, I acted solely out of an “excessive thirst for recognition” which had driven me to engage in a “smear campaign” against Söring marked by “sensationalist gloating”: “Hammel’s behavior with regard to the applicant has nothing in common with legitimate journalistic, let alone scientific, work.” Terry Wright could not be trusted because he was bent on defending his reputation. It went on and on like this.

On 3 June 2022, David and I arrived in Room 123 of the Frankfurt court building. The court room was large and unlighted, with natural light pouring through a bank of windows onto blocky gray daises and bannisters. A few reporters sat in the gallery. David had donned German court attire, a black robe with a tie in the form of two oblong white bands of fabric. Simon showed up, along with Grulert himself. Jens Söring didn’t show. The judges noted that they had just received the “Statement” from Söring’s lawyers the day before and hadn’t had a chance to read it yet. David and I encouraged them to do so.

After a brief recess, they resumed the hearing. German judges are take-charge figures who dominate courtroom proceedings. They enter the courtroom fully briefed, and ask both parties questions to probe their arguments. They immediately began grilling Simon. As David had predicted, they were concerned about Söring’s failure to provide his own address. Simon answered that it was permissible for plaintiffs, especially celebrities, to provide only their law firm’s address to prevent harassment. The judges pointed out that Söring was hardly a major figure, and that his lawyers had not justified their decision to conceal their client’s address.

Eventually, Simon gave in. Grulert wrote Söring’s current address on a piece of paper, which the court handed to our side, with an injunction to keep it private. The judges then turned to the merits. German law protects statements of opinion, and weren’t my statements in the blog post opinions? Simon answered that some of them might be, but that they contained a “core of factual assertion” and those assertions were false. How could you prove them false? the judges asked. For instance, I had said that men decline in dangerousness after 40. Surely that was an opinion, and even if it were also a factual assertion, I had provided links in the blog post to research which backed it up. Further, how exactly did it harm Söring’s reputation?

Simon pointed out that other conclusions in the post were unflattering, especially concerning Söring’s current mental state. I had noted that Söring displayed behavior characteristics of narcissists, while disclaiming any ability or desire to diagnose him. Again, the court argued, these were clearly opinions. The court kept returning to a crucial fact: Jens Söring was actively seeking out the spotlight. German law recognizes that someone who seeks publicity must be prepared for negative commentary. Simon then argued that my comments were designed to torpedo Söring’s attempt to re-integrate into society by casting him as a double murderer.

The judges seemed puzzled: He is a double murderer, at least in the view of the U.S. Söring may disagree with that judgment, but he cannot escape it. A convicted murderer’s attempt to market his life story was certain to generate controversy; Söring had to accept this. Parties to lawsuits can participate directly in German courts, so I chimed in to point out that rehabilitation is based on the idea that a person has taken responsibility for their criminal behavior, which Söring had never done. Simon was getting nowhere. Stephan Grulert watched him flounder for about twenty minutes, then decided that was enough. The two lawyers asked the court for a short recess. David leaned over and said: “They’re probably going to withdraw the suit.” After ten minutes Simon and Grulert returned to court and did just that.

This resulted in immediate victory in the case of Söring v. Hammel. Söring would have to pay my lawyer’s fees, which would run to thousands of Euros. After the 3 June hearing, the case was over except for a technical appeal about the Streitwert. By this time, I had created a Substack blog for my coverage of Söring’s media campaign. I had documented his lawsuit against me on this blog, figuring readers would be interested. They were; my entries about the lawsuit were some of the most popular. After winning in court, I re-posted “Is Jens Söring Dangerous? A Pro and Contra” on the blog, “in all its constitutionally protected glory”.

Yet the lawsuit against me wasn’t Söring’s only retaliation against his critics. Söring also filed a complaint with Eva Beck’s employer. The complaint was ultimately rejected, but, like the lawsuit, caused hassle and uncertainty. Team Söring also filed a complaint, more than 50 pages long, with the German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk (DLF). DLF had broadcast an interview with Dr. Alice Brauner and Johanna Behre about the Söring System podcast and the changing media perceptions of Söring’s case. Team Söring now claimed the interview had violated objectivity and unfairly harmed Söring’s reputation. This complaint was also ultimately rejected.

At no point has Jens Söring, his lawyers, or his PR firms ever identified a single error or misstatement in the Söring System podcast. Söring and his supporters refused all invitations to provide criticism or commentary. Neither Söring nor any of his supporters have ever agreed to debate his claims, despite my standing invitation to do so. Söring never appears in a forum in which he might face critical questions about his claims [until recently]. His only response to criticism is to have his lawyers go after people, or to try to discredit them behind their backs.