Busy today writing up my appeal to the staggeringly defective, irregular, flawed verdict of State Prosecutor Katarina Papaioannou.
Have to write a section establishing my right to appeal in the first place because the entire manoeuvre and attempt at perversion of the course of justice depended on the erroneous classification of myself as a witness, upheld by deceit, which means I had no technical right to any information about my own case. See draft below.
It is implausible that the state prosecutor at the Supreme Court or Areios Pagos is not involved in this brazen and ongoing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at Larisa criminal court. The state prosecutor is either promoting the perversion of justice by standing by passively in spite of evidence, or actively guiding it.
I will be writing to the President of the Supreme Court to ask her for an explanation when I go to Athens to deposit this evidence. Unacceptable.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AS A PARTY
It is necessary to clear the quetion of whether I am a party and, therefore, have the right of appeal.
I am a party and have the right of appeal as shown by
1. the criminal charges I filed on April 22 which state that I am a party (Evidence, X )
2. the payment of the 50 euro fee required to be technically considered a party (Evidence, X )
3. I am the victim of serious crimes and the administration of justice requires that I can appeal a fundamentally flawed decision based on the incorrect application of law to my detriment
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I asked Papaioanna in a written questions whether I was a party or witness on XX XX. (Evidence X)
Papaioannou told me to retun in two months.
In the interval, Papaioannou has rushed through her verdict without informing me and without conducting an investigation. The essential witnesses I asked to be questioned were not.
In violation of my right to be fully informed about my case, I found out by chance that Papaioannou had delivered her verdict on the case XX and XX when delivering a complete copy of all evidence. I was told that Theodekti and Theonike would be prosecuted both orally and on a scrap note but for minor offences.
When I asked about a written copy of the verdict, I was told to return on Monday because Papaioannou had not finished writing it.
On Monday, I again when to the court and again asked to see the written verdict so that I could avail of my right to appeal if necessary. I was repeatedly given the false information by court officials in office 4, Criminal Division, Larisa court, that I could not see the written verdict because Papaioannou had still not finished writing it. I was told to return on Thursday. On Thursday XX, Papaioannou in person told me there was no written verdict available for me to see and to come back in twenty days to obtain the verdict after the Greek Orthodox Easter.
It so happened that I went to the court on Monday XX to clarify the crimes that Theodekti should be arraigned for, I was given a document with the date for the trial.
By chance, I saw my lawyer in the corridor and he made inquiries on my behalf. Through him, I discovered for the first time that Papaioannou had issued a wiritten verdict on April 8th. I found out for the first time that I had to pay a 50 euro fee to become technically a party. I immediately paid the 50 euro fee and obtained a copy of the verdict. I was told by court officials that I could appeal and was given the information I was told I needed to make an appeal ie a form, a about the fee of 300 euros.
The following morning, I received a phone call from a secretary calling on behalf of Papaioannou (I do not speak Greek) telling me in violation of my right to accurate information that I was not allowed to appeal because I was a witness.
I said I had stated on my criminal charges at the Larisa police station that I wanted to be a party and I had paid the 50 fee to be a party technically the day before. Anxious to undermine my right to appeal, I was then told that I shoudl not pay the 300 euro fee required for the appeal because no one would read it. If I do not pay the 300 euro fee no one would read by appeal precisely becuase I had not paid the fee required.
The secretary then told me to speak to my lawyer without informing me the court had rung him. When I arrived at his office, he told me the court had just rung him. Asterios Liapis agreed I was a party because I had paid the fee and that I was entitled to appeal. Apparently under the improper influence of the court, he gave me false information designed to undermine my right to avail of an appeal to correct a fundamentally flawed verdict. He repeatedly said to me Papaiannou is the competent state prosecutor and the only one who could make a final and conclusive judgement. Once she had made her judgement, there was no right to appeal. However, the correct legal position is that only a competent state prosecutor can issue a verdict that i final and conclusive verdict. If the state prosecutor is show to be incompetent and not to have applied the law correctly, and their verdict is flawed, defective as a result, that verdict can be appealed.
In short, Papaioannou and other court officials withheld from me the information that I was a witness and not a party. They gave me the misleading impression that I was a aparty and could see the verdict when it was finally written when in reality I had been classified as a witness and the verdict had already been written.
They conspired to stop me availing of my right to appeal to a verdict that is not the result of harmless errors but of deliberate errors that would, if applied, result in a serious miscarriage of justice but also expose me to a penalty.
I will sum up these facts and add them to the criminal charges detailing other evidence of the perversion of justice by lawyers, state prosecutors and police in Larisa.
To conclude, I ask the court of appeal to set aside any spurious, technical or other pretexts which may serve to deny me my right of appeal of a verdict is so fundamentally flawed that it could even result in serious damage to me.
State prosecutor Papaioannou cannot to be allowed attempt to hide irregularity or defect in the proceedings by undermining my right of appeal without the court of appeal exposing itself to the charge of bias.
I note that a court in Munster, Germany, granted me the right to appeal a verdict even though I am just a witness mentioned in a couple of lines of a civil case involving a defamation case between Theodekti and Kirsten Funke. I was only able to appeal in January 2016 because, in a pattern, I was not informed by my apparently bribed lawyer of the verdict and therefore, could not avail of my right to appeal.
If Munster finally recognized my right to appeal 9 months later on witness, how much more then must the Larisa court adhere to the principle of the rigt o appea when am a party, named a such in a criminal charges filed at Larisa police station on 22nd April 2015, have paid the 50 euro fee to make me a technically a part, and am aggrieved in life and property by the actions of Theodekti and others and have a unambiguous, verifiable evidence of a cover up.
To repeat, the requirement to administer justice in a case concerning violence comes before any legal technicalties. But as it is I technically fulfil all the requirements of law to be a party and not a witness. The classification of me as a witness was erroneous. Technically it may have been correct at the time of the verdict issued on April 8th. But this technical fault was only due to the fact that information I had actively sought had been withheld from me. I have now paid the fee, am party, and have the rights of a party, as is shown by the fact I was able to access the file, obtain a copy of the verdict.
The Appeals court must acknowledge that I am factually, legally and technically a party and entitled to appeal.