Charges continued, final part

Well, I finished the last part of the charges against against Larisa police and justice officials and lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos for conspiring to throw my case against Theodekti Vallianatou of St John, the Forerunner monastery, Anatoli, Greece.

The complete charges have already been sent for translation into Greek. Now all that is left to do is collect all the evidence and put references into the two versions of the report.

A copy of the charges will be sent to the Ministry of Justice in Athens and other justice officials as it is unlikely the first state prosecutor will act unless he is put under political pressure.

I will also send information about my case to every single political party, association and independent media in Greece.

More soon…


On 2 June 2015, a court in Muenster issued a first opinion in a civil libel case brought against Kirsten Funke by Theodekti Vallianatou stating that I was a “supposed science journalist” and “conspiracy theorist” whose allegations against Theodekti Vallianatou were not “comprehensible.”

Kirsten Funke had asked me to act as a witness. I was represented by Christopoulos. I sent emails to him but received no reply.

This verdict gave Theodekti ammunition to undermine my reputation in Greece.

The faulty verdict was only made possible because Christopoulos withheld evidence to enable the court to deliver the verdict. He, then, withheld knowledge of the verdict from me and so denied me the right of appeal.

Proof that Christopoulos withheld vital evidence comes in the form of bank statements showing that I transferred large sums of money to the private acocunt of Theodekti Polychronia Vallianatou, which she had in violation of church rules.

I sent these to Christopoulos to give to the lawyer of Kirsten Funke, Boettger.

But he did not hand them over.

In January 2016, I sent Kirsten Funke directly the bank statements. In an email to me, she said she was close to winning the appeal, indicating it was because of the bank statements I had sent her, which helped prove her claim that Theodekti was corrupt etc.

How is it possible the same bank statements that were apparently accepted by the Muenster appeal court in January as proof that Theodekti was corrupt were not accepted by the first court in May? The only explanation is that Kirsten Funke and or her lawyer did not have the bank statements. That is to say, Christopoulos did not send on the bank statements.

The bank statements were valid proof of Theodekti’s corruption in May, but they must were withheld from the Munster court for that very reason by Christopoulos.

The intention of Christopoulos i was to withhold evidence to allow a verdict to be given tha would damage my reputation and help Theodekti.

The intention becomes more manifest from the from the verdict or first opinion that the Munster court issued in June, claiming I am a “supposed science journalist” and a conspiracy theorist. The implication is that I am a fantasist who likes to think up horror scenarios.

Christopoulos allowed the court and Theodekti to base this verdict on a single discredited website called Psiram, withholding all the evidence that I am a science journalists.

Christopoulos did not inform me of the verdict in violation of his duties as a lawyer representing my interest in the case. He had an obligation to follow the case, find out the court verdict if it was relevant to me, communicate the verdict to me and also advise me of my rights of appeal. He did none of these things.

In fact, the first I knew about a court verdict with a devastating opinion about me, undermining my credibility, was from Kirsten Funke in an email from XXXX, who had launched an appeal.

On January 18th, I wrote an appeal to the Munster court myself offering proofs that I am a serious journalist and acknowledged as such, and sent it to the Muenster court myself. I received a reply from the president of the court on January 22nd, telling me that my appeal would be heard.

The evidence, therefore, shows that Christopoulos was playing a double game. In an email to me on July 8th, he said the police had ordered an investigation into the wrong doing of Theodekti, obscuring the fact that the guidance by the police would thwart my case, in order to keep my trust and retain the power of attorney, yet he did not provide any of this alleged evidence to the Munster court misusing that very power of attorney he obtained and kept by duplicuty.

Christopoulos also tried to dissuade me from lodging an appeal and he downplayed the significance of the Muenster verdict.

I note that Christopoulos has close links to Germany. He did a postgraduate law studies in Berlin and is recommended as a German speaking lawyer by the German embassy in Greece.


In another dubious legal manoevure, Christopoulos encouraged me to accept into my file a report by Kirsten Funke about the alleged wrong doings by Theodekti Vallianatou, which I was not allowed to read. Kirsten Funke told me that Christopoulos had the name and numbers of the witnesses. I assumed he had checked the witnesses.

When I asked him, he admitted that he had not checked any of the witnesses to make sure their claims of Kirsten Funke were accurate. In short, a report that could have been a complete fabrication could have entered my file, something which would have further undermined my credibility.

Christopoulos also refused to let me see the report, citing client confidentiality. This was a ruse. He was representing me and had a duty of confidentiality towards me not towards Kirsten Funke.

In addition, when Theodekti Vallianatou rang Smara Gimas?, Platykampos, in October, and harrassed her because I was staying at her home, Christopoulos gave me the wrong advice that there was nothing I could do about that harassment. In fact, he could have written a letter complaining about Theodekti’s harassment and stalking. It was left for me to do that.

In December, when I was told the file would be assigned to state prosecutor again, I decided I would write a report myself on the new developments in my case myself, and have it translated into Greek. The new report detailed new crimes by Theodeti, evidence that the Bishop of Volos, was involved in a cover up as well as the proof that Alexis Tsipras and George Soros had personal, direct knowledge of my blog. This is relevant to my case as my blog was given as the reason by Theodekti for her actions in April.

In emails and phone calls, I expressly told Christopoulos not to alter the the report.

Furthermore, I put drafts on my blog, saying this was report for the state prosecutor.

Christopoulos reads my blog. This is clear from the fact that he asked me to remove a comment I made about the Orthodox church mafia citing lawyer regulations, which I did. I sent him an email in confirmation on XX.

So from my emails, blog and conversations, it was absolutely clear that the report was meant for the state prosecutor. Christopoulos, however, was determined to suppress evidence and to block the report if he was not able to alter it himself.

In December, Christopoulos sent me an email asking me to send him my new report XX days in advance so he had time to edit and translate it into a language I do not understand before giving it to the state prosecutor. This would have allowed him to focus on a spurious crime in a spurious monastery and suppress evidence of a real crime.

But when Christopoulos realized in January (the report was delayed because the date for its assignation to a new prosecutor was delayed to January 15th) I would not give him the power to edit and change my report, and, in fact, expressly and repeatedly prohibited him from making changes, he decided on a different tactic, namely, to withhold the evidence altogether from my file.

I emailed him the Greek translation ion XX together with the evidence. On XX, I sent him a slightly modified version correcting the order of the sections.

Again, he gave the misleading impression that he would hand in my report. He told me to focus on the monastery, saying that is what the state prosecutor would look at.

He also said in an email from XX that he would check my report and in an email from XX he said it was “in order.” He also acknowledged that he had received the evidence that I had printed out and left at his office door. His intention was to make me believe he had handed it in long enough for the state prosecutor Fasoula, who had been reassigned my file from January 15th, to issue a false verdict on the basis of the psuedo investigation and evidence in the file.

He told me that Fasoula would make her decision in a month or six weeks, meaning that there was only a small window of opportunity to hand in the report.

On Wednesday 27th, almost ten days after I sent him the final report, I rang Christopoulos and asked him if he had handed over my report to the state prosecutor.

He told me he had not. He told me that he did not know that I

intended it for the state prosecutor. I realized that Christopoulos had deliberately left me under the false impression that he had handed it in in order to retain my trust and keep the power over my case. It is very relevant for me to know whether my report has been handed over or not.

When I complained, Christopoulos claimed he did not know that I

intended the report was intended for the state prosecutor. I denied this.

He asked me for proof in the form of emails that I had asked him to hand it over. I was able to deliver that proof.

I recognized that he was looking for pretexts not to hand in the report and said I would hand it in myself. Christopoulos then said he woul dhand it in on Friday. However, I did not trust him to do so.

He also told me he had not applied for me to see the file in spite of repeated requests.

I went immediately to his office to collect the evidence I had printed out and deposited at his door.

I also said I wanted to make an official request to see my file and check what evidence was in it.

Christopoulos presented me with a report from January 18th and a cover letter with the wrong date, ie 18th of January. Recognizing he was attemptng to cover up his inaction, I insisted that he change the date to 27th January.

He repeatedly tried to stop me from handing in the report myself by telling me the state prosecutor would not accept my report. He told him that the state prosecutor would have to give her refusal in writing ie give proof of her violation of the proedures.

Christopoulos accompanied me as I took my report and went immediately to the office of deputy state prosecutor Anna Balogianna in the afternoon. I asked for confirmation that I had handed in the report and applied to see the file. Up to the last moment, Christopoulos told me that the state prosecutor would refuse the file.

But Balogianna understood that she was not allowed to refuse evidence and that to put it in writing would be sure proof of her corruption.

Balogianna gave me the confirmation I had handed me in my report. But she told me that permission might not be granted for me to hand in the report, after all, placing an abitrary restriction on the evidence. She seemed extremely annoyed at my initiative.

On the way out, I said to Christopoulos I did not want to remain as

my lawyer given his failures, but he insisted that he had been busy. It is a critical time in my case and I was reluctant to change lawyer so I agreed but made it clear to him that I would take much more control of my case.

The following morning, Thursday 29th, Christopoulos rang me and said he wanted to resign because of what he called my bad temper and mistrust.

I replied in a phone call and email that I did not have a bad temper. I showed legitimate anger at the way that he was repeatedly damaging my interests.

My lack of trust in him was based on his many failures to protect my interests.

In the email on XX, I listed most of the above points.

Christopoulos did not reply to my email because he knew he had no counter arguments.

We arranged for me to collect my file and a letter of resignation from the office of Christopoulos on Thursday evening. I arrived at his office at about 7 pm to find a stranger who later revealed himself to be Simos Samaras sitting behind the desk of Christopoulos, using his computer.

Christopoulos handed me the file. I asked about the letter of resignation. He refused to give me one.

Samaras kept intervening and saying that I did not have a right to a written resignation. Aan oral resignation was enough under Greek law. I insisted on a written resignation. I said without it Christopoulos could exploit the fact there was no written resignation to continue to exercise power of attorney and thrown my case by accessing my file and adding or removing documents and evidence or withholding the verdict from me.

During this exchange, Christopoulos took all his orders from Samaras,

I asked who he was. He reluctantly gave his name. Christopoulos told me he was a “colleague from Thessaloniki”

I said to Samaras, he was not my lawyer. Christopoulos was and had certain professional duties towards his client and these included providing a written letter or resignation if they asked for it.

I also said I would inform everyone and state prosecutor myself tha eh was no longer my lawyer. Samaras finally told Christopoulos he could decide.

Christopoulos gave me a letter of resignation dictated to him by Samaras.

He claimed to be unnable to make a copy because the computer was malfunctioning. I suggested we go to a copy shop.

On our way to a copy shop, I asked Christopoulos about his relationship to Samaras. He said that he worked ith him on some criminal cases, but denied that Samaras also worked on my case. However, I had the impression that Samaras was familiar with my case. I saw him give Christopoulos instructions of the kind an employer gives an employee. I found out that evening that Samaras is a specialist in church law.

I note that Theodekti and the Orthodox church are the main and immediate beneficiaries of the repeated attempts of Christopoulos to throw my case.

It is, therefore, plausible that Samaras was sent by the Orthodox church as a lawyer to help Christopoulos throw the case.

When I looked at the file Christopoulos had given me, I saw it contained no evidence of a regular police investigation that Christopoulos had informed me in an email in July had been ordered. There was no record of the charges filed against Theoktisti for her attempt to bribe me, no record of the questioning of any witnesses, no record of the police doctor’s report. The file was in a total mess, with a few handwritten notes interpersed with my original report in July, his edited and translated version and a few other largely irrelevant documents.

The only evidence of a police invesigation in the file was a hand written note mentioned in section one designed to thwart the case.

I posted the evidence on Thursday evening that Christopoulos was trying to throw my case on my blog. Christopoulos warned me not to do so and threatened me in a phone call.

The following day, Friday, I received a call from the police as described above.

I believe Christopoulos, the state prosecutor and police panicked when they realized that the incriminating handwritten note was in the file that Christopoulos had given to me. They wanted to summon me to the police station to obtain the note but also to intimidate and harass me into hiding evidence of their corruption.

Christopoulos knew that I had facts and evidence showing he was corrupt from my email. He knew he had no counter arguments, which is why he did not reply. He instead went to the state prosecutor making false accusatons of defamation and libel knowing that he could rely on his fellow conspirators in their attempt to use the police to pervert justice.

In addition, Christopoulos is guilty of misconduct in fraudulent billing. When I collected my report from his office on Wednesday evening, he presented me with three bills, totally over 1300 euros for work done during December. He implied I owed him the money.

However, he had not done any work for me in December.

I had written the report myself, paid for the translator myself, and did

not even vsist him once for consultation.

In addition, we had agreed on an overall price for the whole court case as is standard practice and not on an hourly rate.






The evidence presented in this report shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Konstantinos Christopoulos from May 2015 already was working for Theodekti Valliantou and the Orthodox Church to suppress evidence required to convict her for her crimes and to clear my reputation.

The intention is clear already in the civil case when Christopoulos withheld evidence of the private bank account, evidence which later said would help win her appeal.

Obviously she did not have that evidence in April

In July, at the latest, Christopoulos was joined in his plan to thwart justice by the police of Larisa and the state prosecutors.

In violation of all procedures for ordering a police investigation, a police officials provided handwritten guidance for the investigation which focussed on the wrong monastery, the wrong crime and an not clealy identifiable person “Th Ballianatou”.

To mislead me into thinking that a serious investigation was taking place and to retain power to represent me, and hence to thwart my case in secret, Christopoulos gave me the false impression that the police had ordered a proper investigation.

I was denied an opportunity to give a statement to the police myself. Instead, the police asked me to write a report, giving Christopoulos the power to edit it and translate it and slant it.

Christopoulos tried to thwart the independent questioning of witnesses by the police in Ajia. If questioning did take place, he was in a position to influence the witnesses not to tell the truth. If the witnesses had understood from Christopoulos that he was “bought” and working with the Larisa police and state prosecutor to thwart the case, then they would have realized that telling the truth was dangerous for them as well as pointless as their witness statements could eventually be altered or withheld altogether.

When Christopoulos realized that I no longer trusted him enough to edit and translate my new report with hard proof of more crimes, he decided to different tactic, which was to suppress altogether.

In emails and phone calls, he gave me the impression he would hand in the report, but did nothing. It was only when I asked him point blank that he admitted he had nothanded in the report.

Realizing that he had lost control of the case, he gave me my file but tried to keep the power of attorney. When I asked for a letter of resignation, he at first refused on the instructions of lawyer Simos Samaras from Thessaloniki, who specializes in church law, creating a conflict of interest.

In his panic on Thursday evening, Christopoulos failed to remove a vital piece of evidence in the file in the form of a handrwitten unsigned police instructions proving that the Larisa police conspired to throw my case in July.

His actions, as well as the actions of the Larisa state prosecutors and police, benefit Theodekti Vallianatou, the Orthodox church, and her associates as well as politicians and business people who wish to silence my blog.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that these were the people who are ultimately responsible for the cover up. The presence ofa specialist in Church law Simos Samaras in the office of Christopoulos when I went to collect the file on the evening of Thursday strongly suggests the notion that it was the Orthodox church that took over the role of orgaizing the suppression fo the evidence needed to convict Theodekti.

In a sinister twist, I was being set up to look as if I was making false and confusing claims, ie for the diagnosis of being mentally ill.

But the plan unravelled when I saw the mounting evidence that Christopoulos was throwing my case and took action.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: