SECOND PART OF CHARGES CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY


*DID THE POLICE TRY TO SUMMON ME TO THE STATION ON FRIDAY TO GET HOLD OF THE INCRIMINATING HANDWRITTEN NOTE PROVING THE POLICE WERE INTENTIONALLY THWARTING MY CASE?

*WHERE THE WITNESSES QUESTIONED AT ALL? IF THEY WERE AND TOLD THE TRUTH, ARE THEY IN DANGER NOW? OR DID CHRISTOPOULOS AND THE POLICE FIX THE WITNESSES?

The charges continued from yesterday, first draft…

The final part coming soon together with the evidence. The translation of the first part into Greek has already been finished.

 

Deputy state prosecutor Anna Balogianni

Dikastiko Megaro, Kentriki Plateia, Larisa

The police note handwritten on an unsigned scrap of paper is proof that the police in Larisa had little intention of finding the proof that is required for a conviction of the accused Theodekti Polychronia Vallianatou, Abbess of St John the Forerunner, for her wrong doing in April.

But to be able to accomplish their aim of thwarting justice, they needed the participation of the state prosecutors Anna Balogianni and Ms Fasoula.

As the senior justice official ultimately in charge of the case and as my first point of contact in April 2015, Anna Balogianni knew or should have known that the guidance written on the scrap of paper in July did not constitute a police order for a proper investigation according to the regular procedure but was, in fact, proof that the purpose was to thwart an investigation.

I had personal contact with Anna Balogianni in April 2015 and she was told the content of my case by Konstantinos Christopoulos. Balogianni knew or should have known that the guidance in the handwritten note in July directed the investigation at the wrong monastery and at an indefinite person, and she should have taken corrective action. Instead, she sanctioned the irregular procedure.

In addition, Anna Balogianni appears to have played a key role in the attempt to cover up the evidence of corruption of the Larisa police and Christopoulos.

I put up evidence that Christopoulos was withholding evidence from my file on my blog late on the evening of Thursday 28th January together with his letter of resignation.

The next morning, Friday, 29th January, Christopoulos falsely accused me of “insulting or defaming me” on my blog to the state prosecutor, apparently Anna Balogianna. She immediately ordered the police to question me at Larisa police headquarters in an act of harassment. It is possible that she also was aware of the incriminating handwritten note inside the file I received on Thursday evening after Christopoulos’s resignation, and wanted to obtain it.

Early on Thursday afternoon I received a call from a person who identified herself as a police officer at Larisa police headquarters. She rang from the number 30 241 062 3158, which is the number of the police station .

A photo of my smartphone

phone

 

I missed the call and rang back. She ordered me to go immediately to the police headquarters. Her tone was extremely insistent and hostile. I refused pointing out I did not speak Greek. She continued to repeatedly insist I go immediately to the police headquarters. She threatened several times to send a police car to my home with “papers.”

She refused to tell me why I was being summoned. When I asked her if I had been charged with a crime, she said no.

In another conversation, I was able to find out that Christopolous had filed defamation charges against me. The police woman ordered me several times to remove my blog post. I refused, saying my post was based on fact and was protected by my right to free speech. I explained that I was in the middle of preparing the written evidence and having it translated into Greek, but that this process inevitably took time.

By summoning me immediately to the police headquarters, the Larisa police would have had the opportunity not only to intimidate me, pressure me or get me to sign a false statement. They would also have had the opportunity to look through my file and remove the incriminating handwritten note, which implicates the police in a cover up.

Anna Balogianna was well aware that I have proof of my claims of corruption, but misused the police to try to cover up that corruption.

I immediately wrote about this harassment on my blog to draw attention to the activities of the police and I told the police officer, woman, about it. After that, she backed off and allowed me time to write up and translate the charges.

 

State prosecutor Christina (?) Fasoula

Dikastiko Megaro, Kentriki Plateia, Larisa

As the justice official assigned my case in summer by Anna Balogianna, Fasoula must have known about the deviation from the law and regular procedure which the handwritten police note represented and sanctioned it.

Christopoulos informed me that Fasoula was assigned my case in an email in XX. He told me on the phone she had ordered a full police investigation and that this was a good sign.

In fact, the guidance on the handwritten police note is evidence of an attempt to thwart a full investigation.

Fasoula has again been assigned my case in January, Christopoulos told me in an SMS. I do not know her first name, but it is likely that it is the same Frau Fasoula and that she will likely continue to participate in the conspiracy to thwart justice in my case as she did in summer.

 

 

Konstantinos Christopoulos

Lawyer, Papanastasiou 53, 41222, Larisa

 

The police note handwritten on an unsigned scrap of paper is proof that the police in Larisa had little intention of finding the proof that is required for a conviction of the accused Theodekti Polychronia Vallianatou, Abbess of St John the Forerunner, for her wrong doing in April.

But to be able to accomplish their aim of thwarting justice, they needed the participation of my lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos. This evidence demonstrates that he joined the police and state prosecutor in thwarting justice, at least, from July when this handwritten note came to his attention. However, I present facts and evidence in another part of this report to show that he likely began to work for Theodekti Vallianatou much earlier in the case.

Christopoulos knew or should have known that the guidance written on the scrap of paper in July did not constitute a police order for a proper investigation according to the regular procedure but was, in fact, proof that the purpose was to thwart an investigation.

He knew or should have known that the guidance directed the investigation at the wrong monastery and an indefinite person, and taken corrective action. But he did not do so.

To mislead me, he sent me an email on July 8th telling me that a police investigation had been ordered by the “Praesidium” . He selectively referenced the handwritten instructions on the police note and asked me to write a report for the police. In short, he conspired to give me the false impression that the police intended to find the proof required for a conviction of Theodekti Vallianatou.

The whole plan of Christopoulos, the police and the state prosecutor to thwart justice depended on my trusting Christopoulos to fight my case in an honest way. To make sure that I left him with the power to represent me, Christopoulos systematically misled me about the case.

In July, Christopoulos edited and translated the report that I had been compelled to write instead of making a statement at the police station.

He took advantage of the fact that it was a written report he could edit and I do not speak Greek to produce what appears to have been an incomplete and slanted report designed to fit the overall purpose agreed on my the police and state prosecutor of thwarting justice in my case.

Whie the Email of Christopoulos dated July is proof he was guilty of participating in an attempt to cover up the crimes of Theodekti Vallianatou from July, it is possible he decided much earlier to offer his services to the state prosecutor, police and Orthodox Church trying to cover up the case.

An attempt was made to bribe him by Theodekti through Theoktisti in April. Charges were filed. This is a key piece of evidence of the guilt of Theodekti Vallianatou. There is no record of this attempt to bribe Christopoulos in the file.

The only record I have of this attempt is an email from May 15 2015 from Kirsten Funke who was engaged in a civil libel case against Theodekti Vallianatou at the time in Muenster, Germany, and who asked me to act as a witness.

Christopoulos represented me in this case and communicated directly with the lawyer of Kirsten Funke, Sibylle Boettger. That he confirmed to Sibylle Boettger that Theoktisti had bribed him is clear from the email of Kirsten Funke.

In the email, she says.

Here Jane: Someone has just made the following point to me:

That Sr Theoktisti tried to bribe your lawyer is a very good card in your hand.

kirsten funke.png

That “someone” who said to Kirsten Funke that the attempt by Theoktisti to bribe Christopoulos was a very good card can in a legal sense must have been one of the two lawyers Christopoulos or Boettger.

Kirsten Funke talks about the attempt to bribe Theoktisti in the past tense as a fact that she knows has occurred, and this can only be the case because she was told it was a fact by her lawyer Boettger through my lawyer. Also, the bribery attempt is linked to the legal chances of my case, again indicating the perspective of a lawyer.

The actions of Christopoulos during this civil case in May are consistent with the idea that he conspired to thwart justice as early as May already as I show in a later part of the report discussing his failure to challenge a clearly false verdict by the court in Munester.

Throughout the summer, Christopoulos systematically misled me about the case. He gave me the impression that the police investigation was moving fast and key witnesses would be questioned in August.

In fact, it was only in November, nearly seven months after the events in St John the Forerunner monastery, that only two witnesses were, according to Christopoulos, questioned by the deputy police chief in Ajia, Andreas Koulioumpas.

I returned to Larisa in September and took a more vigorous interest in my case.

I insisted to Christopoulos that he took more action to pressure the police to have the witnesses questioned. In November, Christopoulos gave me the misleading impression that the police would question Theodekti, Theonike and Theoktisti at the police station in Ajia. On further inquiry, I found out that, in fact, Theodekti had obtained permission from the police to make a written statement on behalf of the whole monastery.

Giving Theodekti the monopoly right to make a written statement on the events in the monastery together with her lawyer, put her in a position to suppress evidence that would have emerged through a questioning of the witnesses by the police or through an investigation of objective evidence, which alone characterizes a regular police investigation.

As Abbess, especially as an Abbess enjoying the personal support of the Bishop, Theodekti has a position of great power in the monastery and can use that power to intimidate and bully other sisters or witnesses. Theodekti controls the phones, the computers, the cars, the money, the correspondence, the post. She is, therefore, even in a position to forge witness statements together with her lawyer without the witnesses themselves knowing that forged statements have been supplied in their name.

Recognizing that the police were allowing Theodekti to suppress evidence, I insisted the police question the witnesses independently.

Christopoulos tried to give me the misleading impression that the decision by the police to allow Theodekti to make a written statement for everyone in the monastery was consistent with a “full police investigation.”

Unable to convince me, he then falsely argued that since I had been given the right to send a written report instead of being questioned by police, then Theodekti Vallianatou should also have the right to do and on behalf of all the witnesses.

In fact, I had never been given a choice, at all, between a written report and an official police statement in a police station.

In emails in XX and XX, Christopoulos told me not to return to Greece. He told me to write a report. So, I was never given the choice of making a further statement to the Greek police in a police station.

I insisted on the questioning of the witnesses by the police.

Christopoulos told me on the phone in November that witnesses Theonike and Theoktisti were questioned by the police Andreas Koulioumpas in Ajia, but I have no independent proof of this.

There is no record of any questioning of witnesses in the file of my case which Christopoulos handed me on Thursday 28th of January.

Furthermore, in November Christopoulos knew that the overall purpose was to crush evidence of the wrong doing of Theodekti Vallianatou.

If Theoktisti and Theonike were questioned by the police, as Christopoulos claimed, and if they did tell the truth, they were placing themselves unwittingly in danger from corrupt justice officials determined to suppress the case on behalf of the Orthodox Church and others, and Christopoulos knew it.

Since Christopoulos was working for Theodekti Vallianatou at this time, it is, however, possible that he himself influenced or pressured the witnesses Theonike and Theoktisti to not tell the truth to the police in Ajia during questioning. If Theonike and Theoktisti had reason to believe my lawyer, the police and state prosecutor were working to prevent a convicttion of Theodekti Vallianatou, they would have thought it was hopeless and dangerous to tell the truth to the police in Ajia and they would have been more inclined to go along with a fabricated version of events.

In short, Christopoulos could have helped fix the witnesses before they gave their statements to the police in Ajia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: