My worst fears have been realized, dear readers. The state prosecutors and police of Larisa have set up the trial in November in such a way as to expose me to a lethal penalty.
What I claimed in my submission in February, sent also to the Areios Pagos in Athens, can now be proved.
No wonder state prosecutor Katerina Papaioannou and her colleagues were so intent on using lies to prevent me from getting a copy of their verdict and having the opportunity to appeal. Their irregular, defective approach cannot be explained by human error. There intent is clearly criminal and predicted by me in February. This criminal misuse of the justice system is happening under the eyes of, and presumably with the blessing of, the Aerios Pagos in Athens and the Justice Ministry.
When I went to the Aerios Pagos to deposit evidence, I was shown to the office of the President. The secretary said she thought she recognised my name from a letter from the Justice Ministry. At the time, I thought that was a bad sign. But I did not realize just how bad until I saw the verdict and obtained access to my file on April 18th.
But then again, Alexis Tsipras and George Soros, proven readers of my blog, have a lot of power in Greece, especially in the Orthodox church, in a country so pervaded by corruption that it will be a source of crisis to Europe as long as it is part of the EU, euro and the Schengen zone.
Read the evidence that Soros and Tsipras have direct, personal knowledge of my blog and even copy from it here.
The draft of the introduction of my appeal…
To the Court of Appeal,
Larisa Criminal Court,
Appeal of a decision by state prosecutor Katarina Papaioannou to arraign Theodekti and Theonike on the charges of XX on grounds that the verdict is fundamentally flawed and represents a substantial miscarriage of justice against a journalist seeking redress for a de facto murder attempt and cover made against me by Theodekti on account of my journalist activities, which implicate Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as well as Hedge Funder George Soros.
State prosecutor Papaionanou did not take all the relevant evidence into account in determining the charges for which the accused are to be araigned, and this constitutes an error of law. I obtained a written confirmation from the court every time I submitted evidence to her .
State Prosecutor Papaioannou took over the case in February after I presented substantial evidence of the perversion of justice by the previous state prosecutor, Christian Fasoula. Evidence of the suppression of essential witnesses and evidence by prosecutor Fasoula was sent to the Areois Pagos by Larisa court officials.
It is not compatible with prosecutor Papaioannou’s duty to investigate a serious crime to rush through her verdict in two months without adding any new investigation to Fasoula’s. The way she has ignored essential witnesses and evidence exposes her as well as Fasoula to the accusation of the perversion of justice and criminal charges.
Moreover, state prosecutor Papaioannou has used an irregular, defective and biased approach, continuing the approach of Fasoula, which even exposes me wrongfully to a penalty such as defamation or forcible pyschiatrization at the end of the trial should her failings not be addressed by the Appeal Court.
Prosecutor Papaioannou also lied to me about the erroneous classification of me as witness, withheld vital information from about the verdict, and attempted to stop me, and instigated others to attempt to stop me, from availing of my right to appeal it.
The forced pyschiatrization of a journalist on account of their exposure of wrong doing is a serious felony offence. When state prosecutors are involved in setting up a journalist for just such a forcible pyschiatrization by introducing so many substantial procedural violations into their case, they are exposing themselves to the accusation of joining in the conspiracy to silence a journalist.
Essential evidence in th e possession of state prosecutor Papaioannou concerning Theodekti s verifiable perjury at Larisa court on XX has been disregarded in violation of Papapioannou’s obligation to consider the totality of all evidence impartially. The evidence is unambiguous and consists of statements made under oath by Theodekti, also made on behalf of Theoktisti, which, among other things, deny any knowledge of the contents of my blog and emails from me to both of the above concerning information from my blog proving Theodekti was lying.
This proof of perjury should have been included by state prosecutor Papaioannou because it establishes th motive of Theodekti for participating in a defacto murder attempt against me on account of my journalism activities. It also undermines her credibility.
Other essential evidence in the possession of state prosecutor Papaioannou concerns Theodekti s attempt through Theoktisti to bribe my then lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos on 27th April 2015 has been disregarded by her to my disadvantage.
This evidence consists of a handwritten note by Christopoulos admitting the bribery attempt in the context of another legal case in German and, therefore, has the status of a fact.
This proof of Theodekti’s bribery attempt is complimented by significant other circumstantial evidence that the police suppressed charges filed over it. This is detailed by me in my report to the state prosecutor in the Areios Pagos.
This proof should have been included by Papaioannou in her verdict because a bribery attempt is an indirect admission that the crimes I allege were committed.
But Papaioannou has igored this proof altogether. I allege because she wants evidence of the improper influence on my case to be excluded because it is ongoing and she is implicated.
The testimonies of essential witnesses Theoktisti, Theososte, Theosemni and Thekla, have been excluded by State Prosecutor Papaioannou in violation of my right to present my case fully even though they are mentioned in my criminal charges on April 22, 2015, as essential witnessed and I have repeatedly asked for them to be questioned.
I repeatedly asked Papaioannou in written requests to redress the failure of her predecessor Christian Fasoula and have the essential witnesses questioned. But she did not do so in violation of her obligation to conduct a proper investigation and obtain all information relevant to the case before making her decision.
While the essential witnesses proving my case have been systematically ignored, Papaioannou has sanctioned an approach which includes only the testimonies of the accused or biased witnesses to my disadvantage.
State Prosecutor Papaioannou has not investigated the two statements by the accused, which were not made under oath, even though they are filled with improbabilities, contradictions and totally implausible. In the statements Theodekti admits calling the police, admits indirectly she tried to lock me into the office i.e. she incriminates herself. Theodekti as well as Theonike’s only defense is the implausible version that I was drunk all the time and harming myself by throwing myself at furniture, and bruising myself.
The very fact that Papaioanno has received from me in the past two months since she took on the case significant and substantial reports and evidence prepared by me and written in a clear, coherent, logical manner and showing a correct application of legal principles, must have alerted her, if she were unbiased in her approach, to the falsity of Theodekti’s statement even if she did not read my blog.
Drunkenness and self harming are an addiction. Addictions cannot be stopped. A person who cannot stop drinking and self harming in the monastery, cannot stop drinking and self harming in Larisa and, therefore, is not able to write reports giving substantial evidence of wrong doing or follow a legal case.
In addition, the fact that state prosecutor has charged Theonike and not Theodekti with bodily harm shows bias. I have alleged I was physically assaulted by both of the above. State Prosecutor Papaioannou has conducted no investigation, questioned none of the essential witnesses, to establish which of the two is guilty of bodily harm.
It is, therefore, not clear whether it was Theodekti and Theonike actually caused me my bodily harm since I was assaulted by both Theodekti and Theonike. The decision by Papaioannou to arraign Theonike with bodily harm and not Theodekti and without conducting any proper investigation exposes her to the charge of bias in favour of Theodekti.
It is difficult to know on what basis Papaioanno has concluded that Theodekti has committed these crimes precisely because she has conducted no new investigation in the two months. If she bases her verdict charges on my written evidence because she finds it so credible, then why has she ignored all the restof my written evidence of greater crimes which is equally credible and which says Theonike should be accused of physical assault, attempted strangulation and murder threats.
Papioannou’s decision ignores the facts the lesser crimes she charges Theodekti an dTheonike with were part of and integral to a much greater crime instigated by Theodekti, and not separate and distinct from it.
I was physically assaulted etc by both Theodekti and Theoniki as part of a greater crime of trying to have me forcibly pyschiatrized me on account of my journalistic activity, and as part of the the subsequent cover up of that crime. If prosecutor Papaioannou accepts there is evidence I was physically assaulted and charges Theonike for it, then prosecutor Papaioannou must also take into account the motive, circumstances and events surrounding that assault. She must establish a credible motive. She does not do so.
Moreover, state prosecutor Papaioannou has been complicit in perpetuating the fiction of the relevance of a “person” to my case who has literally been invented out of thin air by Larisa police officers, specifically deputy police commissioner Asterios Mantziokas and Evangelas Toutounas.
This fake person Th. Vallianatou features as one of the accused instructed to be questioned as a witness by deputy police commissioner Matziokas. But Th. Vallianatou was never questioned and their ID and tax number were, apparently, never obtained. Although Papaioannou as the state prosecutor is responsible for following up on all aspects of the investigation, she has not addressed the failure of a witness called by the police to give a statement to give that statement or the failure of the police to discover their identity in the form of an ID card or tax number.
In addition, Papaioannou has biased one of her the charges against Theodekti on Theodekti’s own witness statement, which was not even given under oath, and which has been consistently contradicted by myself.
Also, in violation of rules and procedures that a crime should be clearly formulated so that this court can identify with precision the legal issue it is called upon to decide on, Theodekti has used vague and confusing wording and introduced factually incorrect, indeed, invented sums, to charge Theodekti with embezzlement.
Without conducting any investigation, Papaioannou has taken over the false claims of Theodekti made in her own witness statement and wrongly suggests these are my claims.
I cannot hope to have my 100, 000 euros returned if Papaioannaou uses a the wording is confusing and gives the false impression that I have made the claim and that I have said I have received most of it back from Theodekti.
By chosing to accuse Theodekti in the terms Theodekti has used to frame her defense, , and by failing to investigate the factual and other evidence that Theoedkti is lying, Papaioannou has shown bias towards Theodekti and set up her Theodekti for acquital.
On a proper consideration of all the evidence, the state prosecutor ought to have found that Theodekti accused of felony offenses
The accused’s crimes should be replaced with the following:
conspiracy to commit premedited murder by torture
conspiracy to cover up the above mentioned crime by bribery, perjury etc
conspiracy to cover up the crime in such a way as to set the victim up for a potentially lethal penalty
with the aggravating factor that her motive was my journalistic activities.
It would be wrong to effectively think away the fact that an accused person is guilty of an attempt a premeditated murder if she ought to have been convicted of that offence if the state prosecutors and police had conducted a proper investigation.
It would be wrong to effectively think away the fact that police and state prosecutors are guilty of an attempt to cover up that a premeditated murder if these individuals ought to have been convicted of that offence on the basis of an impartial examination of the evidence.
It would be wrong to effectively misuse a trial to set the victim up for a penalty because of an irregular, defective approach by police and state prosecutors that exposes them to criminal charges.