Draft of my response to the procedural violation etc of state prosecutor Papagani


To State Prosecutor Papagani,

First court, Larisa,

I am submitting this written statement in response to your request, delivered by a call phone through a secretary at 2 30 pm, to respond to the defamation charges of lawyer, Simos Samaras, Thessaloniki, Greece, in your office (office number 2). at 12 pm tomorrow

I would like to point out that requests to attend a civil hearing are to be made in writing. I have received no summons. If you do not know how to deliver to me a written summons, the correct procedure is to phone me and ask me how to deliver a written summons.

Please send a ritten summons by electronic post to jmburgermeister@gmail.com.

Since you and the plaintiff have not properly served the summons and complaint on me, I move for the motion to be dismissed at this stage already due to insuficency of service procedure.

I would also like to point out that the deadline to respond is generally twenty days not twenty hours. I do not speak Greek and need to make use of translators to present my case fully as is my right. To summon me with less than 22 hours notice is a violation of my right to due process.

In addition, was told on the phone I can see the complaint of Samaras from 7 am in the morning. It is not possible for me to see the complaint and have it translated in five hours.

I would, therefore, like to register, at the very start, my objection to your violation of procedures requiring you and Samaras to issue not only a written summons but also to give a reasonable deadline to enable me to prepare my response.

Your substantial procedural violations failures are to my significant disadvantage, and I allege undermine the proper administation of justice and make the whole process null and void.

In answer to the lawsuit of Samaras, I submit my criminal complaint, containing facts or legal arguments to defeat plaintiff’s claim and pave the way for a counter claim.

This criminal complaint, which I am also about to file in Larisa as a separate case, shows how prosecutors, police and lawyers, including lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos, a close working associate of Simos Samaras, perverted the course of justice.

Defendants are public office holder in Larisa police and courts an officer who discharges any duty of a fund provided by the public. And who are bound by statutory requirements, principles and procedures codified in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) [Kodikas Politikis Dikonomias]

Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP,) and the Greek Penal Code

http://www.c00.org/p/greek-penal-code.html as well as lawyers bound by the professional conduct regulations governing lawyers.

In my criminal charges I present evidence that Larisa police and state prosecutors and lawyer prevented the bringing of judicial proceedings against Theodekti Vallianatou and others by concealing my original complaint and by concealing and suppressing other evidence.

I present substantial evidence that police, lawyers and state prosecutors knowingly used fabricated or altered evidence with the intention of preventing the bringing of judicial proceedings. They tampered with the evidence when I put it on my blog.

Also, they improperly use the judicial proceedings for the purpose of vilifying the accused person or other witnesses.

They colluded to allow the accused to give perjured evidence.

They prevented me and essential witnesses from testifying.

They deceived me, misled me, lied to me and then threatened me not to make a statements on my blog,

In all their actions, they intended the cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, and

Seconldy, I would like to draw your attention to the specific section involving Simos Samaras in my criminal complaint and my extracts on my birdflu 666 blog. My claims in this section are factually correct and therefore protected by my right to freedom of speech.

It is a fact that I found Simos Samaras in the office of lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos on the evening of Thursday when Christopoulos was expecting me to collect my file and letter of resignation .

It is a fact that he was sitting in the main chair behind the computer.

It is a fact that Simos Samaras immediately intervened in my communications with Christopoulos. It is a fact that he repeatedly gave instructions to Christopoulos, which he then followed. It is a fact that Samaras repeatedly gave the wrong legal advice that I do not have the write to a written resignation letter if I request it for good reasons to Christopoulos. It is a fact that Christopoulos on hearing these instructions refused me a written resignation letter to my significant disadvantage. It is a fact that I had to point out to Samaras that he was not my lawyer and had no obligations towards me, also not to give advice. It is a fact that I had to point out to Christopoulos that he was my lawyer and had obligations towards me in accordance with the code of lawyers. It is a fact that Samaras then told Christopoulos he could decie ie he could not decide before he was given permission.

It is a fact that Samaras, who spoke German, seemed familiar with me and my case. For example, he never asked any background questions.

It is a fact that Samaras is a specialist in church law according to his blog. It is a fact that the accused in my case are members of the Orthodox clergy. It is a fact that a church law specialist advising on the case of someone who has brought charges against Orthodox clergy raises the question of conflicts of interest.

It is a fact that Samaras dictated to Christopoulos his letter of resignation to me. It is a fact that he was aggressive towards me.

These facts are listed on my birdflu666 blog and in my charges.

If Samaras has alleged that I have made any claim other than the factual above, his allegations are false. I have confined myself to factual assertions and claims that can reasonably be made on the basis of these.

On the basis of these facts and the facts of Christopoulos, it is legitimate me to ask what role Samaras has played in my case since he is a close associate and legal advisor of Samaras.

It is a fact that I have presented pages of evidence that Christopoulos has lied, suppressed evidence in the criminal charges and on my blog in coordination with state prosecutors, police.

It is a fact Christopoulos has never filed defamation charges against me nor has anyone because I am entitled to present facts and evidence of wrong doing and criminal offenses on my blog.

The wrong doing of Christopoulos is proven beyong all reasonable doubt and so it is legitimate for me to task about his associate Samaras working with him on my case, and to ask about his role in the wrong doing, as I was given biased, wrong and harmful legal advice.

Defamation charges are not to be used as a weapon to silence evidence of wrong doing in collusion with state prosecutors who are themselves implicated and therefore have a motive.

Given this systematic, coordinated pattern of perversion of justice by Larisa police and state prosecutors and lawyers, I reject any attempt by you to impose on me a lawyer.

You have a duty to lawfully acquired evidence (Arts. 177, 178 GCCP) and their duty to search for the factual truth (Arts. 177, 351, 357 GCCP) Art. 178 GCCP mentions the most common means of proof: indices, inspection of persons, places and objects, expert’s reports, confessions, statements of witnesses and documents.

That means you are obliged to read my criminal complaint and weigh the evidence. The evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that police, state prosecutors and lawyers conspired to stop me presenting the truth or my case fully. It is legitimate for me to expect this will continue. It is legitimate for me to believ eyou are part of this campaign of harassment.

I alleged a murder attempt by Theodekti Vallianatou and have had to wait ten months and have not been heard. Yet you summon me by phone in violation of procedures the next day . The speed and procedural violation of your summons exposes you to the accusation of bias. It exposes you to the accusation that you are not interested in finding the truth as you are required to doYou are interested in joining in a campaign of intimidation.

Any requirement by you for me to come with a lawyer is something I reject. It imposition of a lawyer strikes at the evidence in the case. My lawyer Christopoulo altered evidence, suppressed evidence, gave false evidence and misled me. Lawyer Christopoulos furthermore, consented to fundamental procedural violations such as allowing police and state prosecutor sto communicate using handwritten notes and thwarting my right to give oral testimony.

My fundamantal right, anchored in the Greek and European Consitution , to justice depends on my right to present my own case fully without lawyers who are subject to improper influence from Larisa police, state prosecutors or the church. Under the ruse of trying to protect my rights, you are underining them.

I would like to point out to you that I have presented convincing proof on my birdflu666 that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras himself reads my blog, and I allege that he was one of the principlal organizers of my murder attempt.

I would like to point out that the government of Alexis Tsipras could fall any day or week due to pressure from farmers and unions and overly political laws violate the basic Constitutional right to due process and a fair trial and freedom of speech will fall with him.

As a state prosecutor you do not decide the law. You must obey the law, obey above all the Greece and European Constitution which takes precedence over the laws issued by the government of Alexis Tsipras. You must obey the rules in conformity with the principles enshroned in the GCCP. You must obey the requirement to find the truth. That means you must read my criminal complaint. When you read it, you must recognize the evidence that my right to present my case fully and the evidence has been violated systematically by Larisa state prosecutors, police and lawyers. That means, I must represent myself for you to be able to find the truth.

I ask you, inaddition, in conformity with your requirement to find the truth to investigate the role of Samaras.

Specifically, I would like you to find ou the following facts

1) Has Simos Samaras ever represented the Orthodox church in any legal case? Has he given legal advice to Theodekti Valliantou or the Bishop of Volos?

2) Does he have personal or financial links to the Orthodox church? Or to Alexis Tsipras? Or banks or other entities that may wish to silence my criticism of them on my blog?

3) Did Samaras advise Christopoulos in my case just on that Thursday evening and in respect to the sensitive issue of the resignation letter or in other issues?

4) Did he collude in wrong doing of Christopoulos?

5) How long has Samaras had a working relationship with Christopoulos? When did it start? Has money changed hands?

6) How often does Samaras come to Larisa?

7) What were the professional reasons for his trip to Larisa during a nationwide lawyer’s strike in January?

8) Why did he give instructions to Christopoulos?

9) Why did Christopoulos follow those instructions?

10) Why did Samaras give me the false and misleading advice I was not entitled to a letter of resignation, thereby allowing Christopoulos to retain power of attorney.

You have started an investigation and that obliges you to find out the facts. I ask you to ascertain the above facts and to disclose them to me so that I can file a counter claim.

I ask for that information and all information in connection with this case in writiing so that I can submit it for a certified translation

I also ask for your written confirmation that you have received this communication.

Finally, I would like to make it clear I am a journalist who has committed no crime and who serves the public interest. I serve the public interest of the people of Greece. I inform them about risky vaccines. I inform them about the private creation of our money and the true source of their debt. I inform them of the influence of George Soros on Alexis Tsipras.

I am entitled to give that information. I am entitled to press charges against those who try to murder me on account of my journalism activties. I am entitled to expect a proper investigation. If there is a cover up, I entitled to name those responsible.

You will not violate my right to a fair hearing and you will not violate my right to freedom of the press under the guise of administering justice when you are actually undermining it.

You will start by serving me with a summons and a deadline in conformity with procedures. You will not summon me to your office with a phone call. You must send me a written request with an explanation of the case and file number.

Thank you for your attention,

Jane Burgermeister

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: