GOVERNMENT SPONSORED EXTORTION IN MALTA RAISES THE QUESTION, THE

THEOLOGICAL QUESTION, AS TO WHAT THE TEACHING MAY HAVE BEEN Paul of Tarsus
brought to the island.

PROSPECTUS MELITENSIS           

by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D. © 2010                                                                                                                 

                                 
It might be tempting, at times and for some, to create a metaphor out of Malta’s geographical
position vis a vis the rest of Europe and with  the evidence provided by some of the actions of
Maltese corporations, and political parties there might appear some justification.  But I will not do
that mainly because it would be contrary to both my expectations and my desires.
I will, however, express my present grave concern for the evident greed and misdirected intellect
and self-destructive hubris that portends a catastrophe. 
The following outlines my inane preoccupation with some contrived conviction imposed upon me by
some social myth. It is evident that the entire world, with few if any, islands of purity is engulfed in a
maelstrom of fabrications which spun, layer upon layer have served to bind into impotence the once
potentially creative processes of a population of 400,000 presently lost souls.
A vivid example of the point I wish to make was unwittingly presented in a YouTube video discussing,
somewhat patronizingly, one episode in the Iraqi war where after a helicopter attack on a civilian
group civilian rescuers had come to rescue the only wounded but living man by moving him into
their van were seen, by the narrator of the video discussing the event as having, somehow, broken
the rules of war and so they, too, were killed and two 7-8 year-old children in the van critically
wounded. Since when, I had to ask myself, are the rules of war supreme over the rules of humanity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk The men in the helicopter are excused by the
military analyst on the grounds that in a battle situation those involved are on high alert and energy
and therefore may have mistaken a camera for a gun. I wonder the same explanation might have
been applied to the situation in New Mexico (USA) where a police officer shot a man (fatally, I think)
because the officer had mistaken a crucifix for a gun. My contention is that it takes a certain type of
personality with a certain type of training to function as a police officer or military man at all.
When I lived in a community in southwest Virginia (USA) I was observed, by a woman I did not know,
who was walking down the entrance walk to her sister’s house, planting young annuals for the
summer garden in the front of my house, This woman was, apparently, offended and obliged to
remind me with a sarcastic tone “They’ll do nicely if you plant them on Sunday”. She was right, but
the somewhat ridiculous thought I occurred to me “I wonder if the seedlings know that”. This
woman, who probably believed, she was absolutely right in her authority as a respectable woman in
the community to expect a stranger to adjust his behaviour to her expectations...at least on the

matter of planting seedlings on Sunday.  I wish I had

reminded her that her hemline was more than 12 inches above the floor and that her revealed
ankles were a temptation to all mankind. In point of fact they, were not, especially not after the

photograph of Marilyn Monroe standing over a  street exhaust.  

and a kilt-wearer has the same problem This was the same community which was
reported to have pressured the University President to have his wife note down the names for
future rebuke of university girl students who failed to wear both hats and gloves at Sunday worship.
To my mind these are all examples of the application of so-called “authority” over the lives...the
privately owned lives...of others. These are examples of abuse of power as are the expectations of a
lawyer hired by Maltacom to discredit the intelligence of a defendant in a court case by calling to the
attention of the judge that the individual could not remember his own telephone number...which
Maltacom had disconnected 7 years earlier. The Judge and the lawyer, of course, being members of
the same community, understood each other and agreed that  this was a demerit, as opposed to my
opinion that remembering a useless telephone number to a disconnected phone might have been
more clearly evidence of dementia than this conspiracy between big business and law courts would
have allowed.
What all these examples illustrate is not the application of intelligence, but power. In my opinion
unmoderated power is barbaric.
Perhaps those school systems which state they wish to encourage “critical thinking” might be called
upon to more clearly define the parameters they have in mind if they do not wish to come face to
face with the ire of “authority”. After all, while “critical thinking“ is thought to be a worthy goal
possessing certain intellectual advantages power insists on exercising its own privileges and cannot
tolerate disagreement or disobedience.
All the above are intended to set the stage for, perhaps, an understanding that has not experienced
much exposure in many parts of the world, and, in some, seems to be in retreat.  That understanding
is that while rules—any rules, anywhere  at any time—are subject to change, sometimes convenient,
sometimes inconvenient, sometimes moral, sometimes immoral.
The example that follows which is a real one should show us the outlines of rules of conduct that
have been changed, at least in their application, for the convenience of a brotherhood in power and
for the immoral application to the  disadvantage of an alien minority.   Fortunately, it seems, this is
becoming more widespreadly known in that one of the bastions of political and governmental power
have been already publicly accused of charging 30% more to non-Maltese speaking clients than to
Maltese. One might only wonder whether this characteristic was present at the time of Paul’s
shipwreck and that he failed to notice it or was it one of his related teachings.
The example follows:
This example describes an extended controversy between someone living in Malta and the 
telecommunications organization Maltacom “GO” with the Maltese judicial system ostensibly acting
as the moderator of justice. As it turned out, however, there was neither justice nor moderation but
the unadulterated exercise of unreasonable power.
 Maltacom became so accustomed to the client’s request, sent in response to bills to have the
charges to his account reviewed by some alleged functioning contestation committee that they
automatically sent him a rejection of his request without his having requested one.  This clued the
client into the probability that Maltacom’s claims for fairness to clients was bogus.
 Maltacom p.l.c.
Spencer Hill
Marsa HMR12, MALTA

P.O.Box 40
Hamrun, HMR01,MALTA

To Maltacom Contestation committee:

I am submitting the following for your consideration.

There are three sheets of telephone calls listed. Those that have been crossed out are NOT in contest. Those with notes made by them are
in contest.  There are several calls listed belonging to people I do not know.  There are also several listed with no identification.

I was unable to verify calls to cell phones as the program of the net doesn’t seem to allow for it. These calls should also be considered
under contest.  The total Lm is 4.48 from a telephone bill of Lm119.49.

At that time the client decided to stop asking Maltacom to do what it claimed it did and
decided to get the court system to ask this important Maltese corporation to behave
properly. This decision produced its own revelations.
The client carefully prepared his case, acting as his own attorney, and secured a witness to
his claims. The client and the witness arrived before the agreed time and after waiting in
the presence of the judge, Judge Fenech, for some time it was finally concluded that
Defendant, Maltacom, was not going to appear. 

At that point the Plaintiff asked Judge Fenech to rule in his favour. Judge
Fenech refused.
Noel Scerri who identifies himself B.A. L.P.an associate of Matacom, p.l.c.
and states the following:  “The defendant knows of no Court (Tribunal) sitting
scheduled in 2003 for which it did not attend.” The cause for that defendant’s
denial is a mystery. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that usually
it was Maltacom who was the plaintiff and not the defendant.
Judge Fenech asked the plaintiff to submit the telephone numbers in
question. The plaintiff did so. Not wanting to be accused of tampering with
evidence he submitted the bill themselves as they had been sent to him and
in sequential order. This Judge Fenech rejected when he saw about fifty
pages in front of him. He then ordered the plaintiff to highlight the numbers
in question. The plaintiff did so and Judge Fenech rejected that solution. He
then ordered the plaintiff to separate them out from all the other numbered
listings and so the plaintiff  did so, but then Judge Fenech said he would not
even look at the numbers but would give his decision in writing within a
week.
He did so, but the decision came to the plaintiff in Maltese , which the
plaintiff did not read, even while the court proceedings had, by mutual
agreement , been conducted in English.
The plaintiff-client had to finally secure a translation from a lawyer by the
name of Charlie Galea who charged him 10 Maltese Lire (about $30) and
failed to provide a written translation and, it turned out, had omitted telling
the client the judgment included the statement that the plaintiff in the case
had not presented evidence. This statement dictated, presumably, by Judge
Fenech, was not true. The plaintiff/client had three times presented the
evidence and each time embodied the changes ordered by the judge. It was
the judge who refused to look at the evidence and not as was stated in the
official judgment. Ergo, the judge lied.
Now it was Maltacom’s  turn to bring charges against the client. This time in a
different court with a different judge, one Mario Scerri. The client/defendant
in this case pays the required fee to file an answer after he is told (without
having asked) by the court that his house would be taken if he didn’t answer.
On some level of awareness it was this oddly appearing threatening
statement that clued the defendant/client into the possibility that this had
been the motivation all along. The client has been aware that those who
conceive of criminal assault often inform their intended victims, in some
fashion or another, of their intention.
The defendant/client appeared in court before the time scheduled but
waited the hour and a half seemingly required of subject-residents. He
presented his objections to the proceedings, citing the fact that the issue had
already been heard in another court and a decision, although unsatisfactory,
made which had not been contested by the then defendant (Maltacom) and
so this present case appeared illegal on the grounds of double jeopardy.
Judge Sherri ignored this objection.
The defendant/client presented much of the same material to make the
same points as he had done in the earlier court. As the proceedings
developed , in English by agreement, it was learned in a short conversation
between The judge and the legal representative to Maltacom that because
Maltacom computer system automatically deleted data after a certain period
of time the defendant’s request to see the plaintiff’s evidence upon which
the Maltacom case rested could not be realized. There was, in effect, no
evidence whatever to support the charges. At which point it seemed to the
defendant the Judge was obliged to dismiss. He did not.
So, judge Sherri  aware of the situation still accepts as evidence the
Maltacom Lawyer , a Mr. Mizi, displaying a table of random numbers and
asked the defendant whether he recognized them. The defendant replied
“No”…after all, it is theoretically impossible to recognize random numbers…
that is why they are random.
 When shown the telephone numbers in question of which the defendant
had copies and the company’s computer did not which the client/defendant
had been ordered by Judge Scerri to provide (what is this?…the
defendant providing  the evidence for the plaintiff ?). When shown
the list of the numbers in question, this representative of the telephone
company stated he did not recognize them and went through, in full face of
the court, the charade of searching among his papers. In short this was a
masquerade performance. So, despite the defendant  providing the real
evidence needed by the plaintiff the plaintiff denies recognizing the numbers
as telephone numbers, perhaps, because he realized they would not, after all
support his claim.
The defendant client is still perplexed as to why Maltacom brought suit in the
first place if they realized they lacked the evidence. Was it, perhaps, that
they were trusting to the reputation, as Judge Sherri was reported having
stated to a colleague in the court, that “never sue the big companies…they
always win”. What does such a statement imply coming from one who works
daily in the system…does it mean the system in actuality functions on a
system, other than the one outlined in the statutes?
Advancing in time to the present. A court’s Marshall arrived at the client’s
office door in the afternoon of the 22nd of October, 2010 to deliver a notice of
a warrant to garnish my bank account. The warrant was dated the 19th and
had, I learned, somehow, later been issued on the 15th. So it took a week to
come to me when had it been hand carried the drive would have been no
longer than 10 minutes. However, it is clear that the intervening week meant
an extra 8% interest on an alleged debt to Maltacom.  This fact illustrates one
of my original points and that is that for “authority” to be effective the power
of compulsion must be exercised whether or not the one with the power is
right or the offending individual plants marigolds on Sunday or fails to wear
gloves or a hat to church. In this instance a bit more bizarre for it is not
customary to challenge the occult arrangements between government and
big Maltese corporations.
The notice of warrant mentioned a figure of E- 864.09, but when the client
finally made out the check it had advanced to E- 1104.09. All in a matter of
two days.
There is, now, no doubt in my mind that the courts of Malta comprise a
criminal organization and following the actions of the faith of Julian Assange
the best way to eliminate it is to expose it.
If, by chance there are those, in power yet, who may agree with me, I am, in
my turn, revising my damages from the E- 445.31 which represents my
expenses, but not my damages which normally would bring the total to E
-13,378.93 I have decided that the offenses to humanity are so great that
that small sum, if awarded, would not have impressed these people who
have behaved with so much greed and hubris. Consequently, I think the sum
of E- 1,337,893.00 might do the job and they, and others, might be less able
to forget.
Additionally, I would advise the disbarment of all lawyers concerned  for a
period of 15 years .