Frequently Asked Questions

ddddfff

Can I even 'blame' anyone, let alone everyone, without risking lawsuits, prosecution, or other consequences if I were to say something untrue or engage in abusive behavior? Especially when those being blamed are powerful figures such as lawyers, magistrates, and other high-ranking individuals who could easily retaliate with libel cases, using the courts to their advantage. The first thing they would likely do is shut down my website. Psychiatrist David Cassar, in particular, would probably be the first to confront me, having me confined at Mount Carmel Hospital 24/7 at his discretion, rather than merely imposing yet another restriction on my freedom of communication (1, 2, 3).

Could it be that labeling someone as "mentally ill" effectively grants them legal immunity, making them less likely to be prosecuted for certain actions? If that's the case, then such a label could be misused to engage in serious crimes—like setting up a child pornography website or promoting hate speech against minorities—under the assumption that mental illness would shield them from consequences. It's almost as if society accepts the idea that a mentally ill person could go on a violent spree, and nothing would be done to stop them, with authorities simply looking on.

It would have been far better if I hadn't been labeled as "mentally unstable" to begin with. That way, those I’ve made serious allegations against could have had the chance to clear their names—or even sue me for defamation, if they wished. I believe the first to take me to court would have been none other than Magistrate Carol Peralta himself. The truth is, they didn’t prosecute me because what I’m saying is true, and I have documents and evidence—uploaded publicly—to support my claims. Instead, they keep the "mentally ill" label on me, because it undermines my credibility. People dismiss what I say without even checking the facts, despite the evidence being freely available online.

Magistrate Carol Peralta had no other option but to go into exile and work as a magistrate in Kosovo in July 2003 (his last [criminal] sentence is dated 30-Jun-03) due to my reporting him. This move was also an attempt to avoid embarrassing the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which had been covering up his crimes instead of firing and prosecuting him. The Commission likely sought to save face, fearing that I would escalate the matter further if he continued to preside over my case with his evident favoritism.

This was far from being a prestigious position at an institution like the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Instead, he was sent to an unstable region - one that experienced significant unrest just a year later, in 2004. During this period, extremist groups destroyed UNESCO World Heritage sites, including churches and monasteries dating back over 1,500 years to Byzantine times.

To illustrate the gravity of this situation, imagine if the then-Bishop of Gozo, Mario Grech, had not been promoted to a Cardinal but was instead sent away to a remote African village. Surely, people would have speculated about misconduct or maladministration. Similarly, Peralta's exile was a clear indication of disgrace.

However, in an incredible turn of events, Peralta returned as a magistrate in Malta in March 2012 (his first [criminal] sentence upon his return is dated 9-Jun-12). This meant I had to face him again during my second court case in 2014. Rather than recusing himself, he seized the opportunity for revenge. Had he remained in Malta all along, he might have been promoted to judge and would now be enjoying a judge’s pension rather than that of a magistrate.

For those who believe his assignment in the Balkans was a career advancement, consider this analogy: it is like a primary school teacher claiming to have been promoted to a university professor abroad, only to return in disgrace to the same primary school as a teacher. His humiliation was even greater—once dismissed from his role in the Balkans, he couldn’t even confirm whether he would be returning to the bench.

When he resumed his role as a magistrate in March 2012, he later held a controversial Christmas party in the courtroom in December 2013. This was not just a festive gathering but a celebration of his return from exile after nearly nine years. The previous year (December 2012), he had not risked such a display, [mhux se jibda jqazziza jkun ghadu gej], as the PN government under Gonzi was still in power. Only after the Labour Party won a landslide victory in the 9-Mar-13 election did he feel confident enough to celebrate, even attending a "Labour lunch" with his political allies soon after.

After being reported to the Commission for this courtroom party, Peralta announced his retirement in August 2015. However, he did not resign outright; instead, he strategically retired to spare the Commission the embarrassment of having to dismiss him. This maneuver allowed him to preserve his career and secure his magistrate’s pension, which he might have lost had he been formally expelled from the judiciary (compare to this just as well fraudulent case).

Did I coincidentally begin suffering from delusions after Magistrate Carol Peralta threatened to smash me against a courtroom wall during a court sitting? Were my alleged delusions truly about Magistrate Peralta, those who abused me, and those to whom I reported the abuse but who chose to do nothing — protecting powerful individuals and their associates? Or is it not telling that I exhibited no such “delusions” regarding colleagues, friends, or relatives?

It seems that all it took to label me as delusional — and thereby protect Magistrate Peralta’s career — was a stroke of a pen on fabricated psychiatric reports, supported by false testimony from psychiatrists who operate without scientific evidence or standardized testing. Sadly, this is far too common in the profession of psychiatry, where diagnoses are often subjective and unaccountable.

Imagine a whistleblower being discredited by falsely claiming he has AIDS. Should he also be labeled delusional for requesting a blood test or for speaking out about his experiences? At least in the case of AIDS, objective tests exist. In psychiatry, however, no definitive biological tests are available.

Psychiatry often functions within an unequal power dynamic in which the psychiatrist’s word is accepted without scrutiny — particularly when high-ranking officials are implicated and revenge is a motivating factor. Meanwhile, the accused, an ordinary citizen, can present a wealth of documentation and evidence, yet still be ignored or dismissed. Once labeled mentally ill, a person is effectively silenced before ever being given the chance to be heard.

For comparison, the renowned Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia — who was ultimately killed in a car bombing — had over 40 pending libel cases against her. To be clear, I didn’t write against “Jack of the village” — the ordinary person, the man in the street — someone who might think twice before taking legal action, especially when it would mean the hassle and cost of hiring a greedy, money-hungry lawyer, only to potentially be fooled by the same person and end up worse off. Instead, I targeted powerful individuals — people who are either in the legal profession themselves or are close enough to lawyers that they could easily get legal representation, even for free. In fact, they could probably fill a courtroom with lawyers just to show their strength.

My website has been online for several years, and yet, there has never been an order to shut it down, nor have I been taken to court for what I've written. I’ve never even faced a single defamation lawsuit. That alone shows how careful I’ve been not to write anything criminal, misleading, or abusive — especially about those in power. Considering the influence these people have, and their ability to manipulate the legal system, they would have jumped at the chance to take revenge or defend their reputation in court if I had crossed the line.

From a recently surfaced article, it is clear that anyone could have similarly claimed my website damaged their "honour, dignity, and reputation in society, including in their social and professional circles" and "also caused them psychological and physical discomfort." Yet, I was never asked to apologize for anything I wrote, not even a single word, unlike a prominent local lawyer who was recently forced to do so.

This, in itself, speaks volumes about my website’s reputation. They cannot deny the overwhelming evidence I have uploaded. My website speaks only the truth, and for that, I have been relentlessly persecuted and abused. Their goal has always been to intimidate me, break me psychologically, or even have me killed.

Quite the opposite, actually. These days, even a random Facebook comment by an ordinary person rarely goes unnoticed — so how could an entire website, packed with write-ups on prominent figures, be ignored? The local media know full well about my website. I’ve personally contacted them multiple times in the past. In fact, back in August 2021, one article even mentioned: “Nicholas Grech documents personal ordeal... on website...” — but of course, they conveniently left out the serious abuses I exposed, terrified to touch on anything that might incriminate their powerful friends.

Let’s be real: if I had written anything abusive or defamatory on my website, those same people who worked so hard to assassinate my character — like Times of Malta, who like others shamelessly branded me the “Mosta cat killer” with zero evidence — would have been the first to publicly attack and discredit me. But no, they stay silent, because my website hits a nerve. It exposes their lies, their abuses, their hypocrisy, the rotten system that protects them, and the corrupt networks they’re part of. It exposes the truth they’re so desperate to bury, especially about the disgusting abuses within psychiatry and how it’s used as a tool to silence and control.

And here’s the sickening part — Times of Malta, the very outlet that so much spread fake news and stoked public hatred against me, was actually rewarded with European funds to do so-called “fact-checking” of online content. Was all in vain reporting them. The irony couldn’t be more disturbing. The same people who weaponized misinformation against me are now officially sanctioned to decide what’s true and what’s not. That’s not just hypocrisy — it’s a dangerous, institutionalized form of gaslighting.

Psychiatrists on their part, can’t stand that I’m still speaking out. So they retaliate in the only ways they know: drugging me, restricting my freedom of expression, and trying to erase me from the internet by reporting my website to Google or Bing — who just go along with it, no questions asked, no investigation, no truth-checking.

As Mark Zuckerberg rightly pointed out, the EU "has an ever increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there. The European Parliament didn't just ignore my petition — they made themselves complicit by throwing obstacles in the way of victims like me. They’ve turned their backs on justice, leaving people like me more voiceless and vulnerable to even more abuse by the powerful monsters they protect.

Fortune tellers pretend to read your mind, even though they can't read their own. Similarly, psychiatrists claim to understand your mind, yet they are often unable to tell if you are lying. You would call someone a fraud if they pretended to be a specialist in, say, diabetes or kidney health, but gave you medication that worsened your condition. Likewise, psychiatrists claim to have the cure for mental illnesses, but their medications often exacerbate the very symptoms they are supposed to treat. This happens either directly (through side effects that are mental health issues themselves, such as depression, parkinsonism, and panic attacks) or indirectly (through the debilitating effects of their treatments). For example, insomnia and the inability to sleep can drive you crazy and even cause physical pain, like neck strain from tossing and turning all night. Other side effects, like weight gain, erectile dysfunction, lethargy, restlessness, drowsiness, and sedation, can make it difficult for you to work, potentially leading to financial dependency and a loss of independence. Itching, skin rashes, and bruises can make you feel self-conscious, keeping you from enjoying social activities like swimming. Being labeled with a mental illness often means being seen as unpredictable, and combined with the stigma of psychiatric medications, it can make it hard to form relationships or start a family.

Psychiatrists diagnose mental illnesses with little more than a stroke of a pen, often without scientific backing, even though we live in the 21st century with limitless technological advances. Despite this, they continue to long for a scientific test that could provide a clearer foundation for their diagnoses. Once you seek psychiatric care, you become entangled in their system. They expect you to continue seeing them and taking their medications for life, citing the risk of relapse as an excuse. Over time, they increase your dosage, claiming that your body has become accustomed to the medication. They often seem to enjoy experimenting with the side effects of their drugs, all while pretending that these issues are merely a worsening of your "mental illness," when in reality, they stem from their own treatments.

Psychiatrists, aside from their experience in dealing with patients with mental health issues, do not possess any special abilities beyond what the average person might have in determining whether someone is truly "crazy." Despite living in the 21st century, they still rely on no scientific tests to base their diagnoses. Magistrate Carol Peralta relied solely on Psychiatrist David Cassar to help save his career after a fiasco in which he threatened me during a court session, claiming he would smash me against the wall during my first court case. He had no qualms about later appointing multiple psychiatrists to submit a joint mental health assessment report, knowing that, in their questionable profession of psychiatry, they would never dare contradict each other, exposing one another as frauds.

In my second court case, after spending over a decade working full-time in a responsible role with people under my care, with no issues in the workplace, and never having taken a single sick day despite never using medication for the mental illnesses they falsely claimed I suffered from since the first case, I was intentionally misrepresented in testimony as a mentally disabled person, to justify locking me away in a mental institution. This was not due to any mental health issues, but because of their desire to help Magistrate Peralta exact maximum revenge on me. The same Peralta who should have recused himself from my case in the first place, but instead presided over my second case as well. My cases cannot be an isolated incident, as Magistrate Carol Peralta would not have been so confident that psychiatrists are fraudsters, willing to falsely testify and submit fake reports, unless he had reason to believe they could do so without consequence. This allowed him to achieve his goal: saving his career and later taking maximum revenge on me.

I had two court cases: one in 2001 and the other in 2014.

The first case involved a prank targeting a woman who happened to be the daughter of a former court registrar. For about a year and a half, until my arrest in June 2001, I misled the police by sending letters claiming I was about to commit acts of vandalism in certain locations. This caused them to waste resources while I remained undisturbed, writing humiliating messages about her on public walls.

The second case involved a prank with dead animals I found on the roads. I crucified and hung them around my hometown on the 16th of each month, except for three instances in February. Over the course of two and a half years, until my arrest in March 2014, I used a total of 12 cats and 3 dogs across 12 occasions, with the last three incidents involving two animals each. My actions were intended to mislead the police into suspecting an elderly man from the area. Indirectly, I also hoped to draw attention to the large number of animals killed on the roads by reckless drivers, as well as broader issues such as Malta's permission for hunters to kill birds for sport, the destruction of natural habitats, and other forms of environmental negligence.

Both of my court cases involved pranks, certainly nothing serious enough to merit imprisonment. At most, they warranted a suspended sentence. However, I ended up being abused and framed by amongst others none other than the police, who even tampered with evidence. Given these injustices, I could have easily turned the case against my opponents, as their credibility would have been completely undermined, and the accusations against me would have collapsed.

The problem is that in corrupt Malta, those in power always find a way to be excused, with their crimes conveniently swept under the carpet. Worse still, they intentionally create obstacles if you dare to gather evidence against them. Meanwhile, they take great pleasure in exacting revenge on ordinary people, even if it means incriminating an innocent person, just as they did in my case.

One must understand that I was not actually sentenced by Magistrate Carol Peralta for that prank—for which the most I should have received was a suspended sentence. Instead, it was an act of revenge on his part for having been reported in the past, and he, in a way, had to suffer the consequences. He successfully exploited the corruption within the Maltese courts, the abuse of psychiatry, and his circle of friends to fulfill his long-held dream.

The idea of hanging crucified animals was something I came up with myself, so if I dared do it again, I would be the prime suspect. To be fully honest, I once imagined that if I were discharged, I might hang a crucified cat near Magistrate Carol Peralta’s or Psychiatrist David Cassar’s home with my intention being to provoke public debate about the abuses I suffered from them in particular, as detailed on this website.

Also, I was severely punished for a prank involving animals that were already dead, while others deliberately kill innocent, living birds for fun as part of their sadistic pastime, destroy the environment and animal habitats through overdevelopment. To challenge this hypocrisy and hopefully put an end to such savagery, I once considered continuing my prank, crucifying already found dead animals, or else proving the discrimination by showing that if I wasn’t allowed my pastime, neither should they be allowed theirs, with my final intention being that by not permitting mine, neither should they permit theirs. But making such a statement would require strong public speaking skills, which I lack. So in the end, it’s just wishful thinking, for being good with the pen isn't enough. Meanwhile, hunters and trappers continue killing animals, some already on the verge of extinction, and speculators destroy what little remains of our countryside. And the so-called animal lovers? They waste their time on referendums that only bring them back to square one.

Guilt? Guilt for what—playing harmless pranks, using animals that were already dead? Would you ask the same question to those truly responsible for harm—those who kill animals by reckless driving and leave them behind, or those who dispose of their dead pets by dumping them on the road? What about those who consume meat, fueling the slaughter of animals, or those who buy paper and wooden furniture, contributing to deforestation?

And what about those who framed me, assassinated my character, and subjected me to unjust punishments? Those who spread hatred against me with lies, refusing to retract a single word, even when confronted with undeniable evidence? I went as far as creating a website filled with documents and proof, yet the truth was ignored. Instead, I was fraudulently labeled as mentally ill—just a convenient cover-up for the crimes of powerful people. They destroyed me with psychiatric treatments, forced me into confinement, and subjected me to abuse, all because I exposed injustices—not just against myself, but against countless voiceless and vulnerable patients.

If I feel any guilt, it is for not doing enough to expose the horrors of psychiatry. It pains me deeply to see patients suffering from the devastating side effects of psychiatric drugs—being sedated, their strength drained, their spirits crushed. Some die, choking as a result of medication effects. Others are manipulated into self-destruction, made to feel worthless and hopeless by the very system that claims to help them.

At the end of the day, it's always the same story. So many abuses go unpunished because no one dares to challenge the system. No one speaks up for the patients, because doing so would expose powerful figures and their network of corruption. And so the cycle continues, unchecked and unchallenged.

Since childhood, I had a bad habit of teasing my schoolmates. As I grew up, I decided to take it a step further and turned it into pranks. However, as a consequence, I ended up facing two court cases, which made me aware of the corrupt system, especially the evils of psychiatry. So, I changed my approach. Instead of playing pranks, I started exposing and documenting abuses, holding authorities accountable for their complicity in failing to act. Honestly, I enjoy this new direction and will never go back to pranking. Besides, I’m too old for it now, and I would likely be the prime suspect anyway, given my reputation. After all, pranking had become my specialty, even managing to humiliate the entire police force - twice.

This false claim originated from my first court case, where I played a prank exploiting the immoral lifestyle of a woman. I wrote derogatory inscriptions on public walls, such as "(her name) enjoys s**king it for free," referring to her as the "Cicciolina of (her hamlet)," "Headmistress of Lickings," and "Duchess of Semen." I even mocked her father with the nickname "Mengus" (a derogatory Maltese term). Clearly, these were not the words of someone trying to pursue or obsess over her romantically. Instead, I deliberately used these terms to mislead the police into thinking that the prank was carried out by someone with a past sexual affair with her.

What I didn't anticipate was that her father was a former court registrar. When I was arrested, in an attempt to protect his family’s reputation, he portrayed his daughter as the complete opposite of how I had depicted her - claiming she was a pure, saintly virgin. At the same time, he painted me, who had mocked her for over a year and a half, as being obsessed and infatuated with her. I didn’t bother denying these lies, as they somewhat shifted responsibility away from my actions. After all, it was better to be wrongly accused of being obsessed with her than to be held accountable for deliberately subjecting her to public humiliation.

Ironically, despite trying to defend her honor, her father seemed comfortable enough with her lifestyle to request, through his lawyer, that I be barred from entering Sliema, St. Julian’s, and Rabat - almost the only towns in those days known for nightlife. This restriction was imposed as a condition of my bail, not just at night (as another condition already required me to be home from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.), but also indirectly during the day. This speaks volumes about her habits, especially since these towns had nothing to do with my case - I had committed no misdeeds there. The restriction was clearly meant to protect her ability to enjoy life undisturbed. Funnily enough, fate later led her to settle down, marry, and build a family in a home located on a street whose name, when literally translated from Maltese, means "The (he split) Street."

As for my second case, some 13 years later, I once again sought to mislead the police - this time into suspecting an elderly man of being behind the crucifixion of animals. To strengthen this illusion, I affixed an animal to a church statue he had funded and hid a letter under the cat’s skin, making it seem as if he were cursing the statue for failing to fulfill his romantic desires for the sexton’s sister. However, after I was arrested, the police, frustrated over how long I had humiliated them, deliberately fabricated a media story claiming that I had been the one obsessed with a woman. To make matters worse, they falsely linked me to the same woman from my first court case - the very one I had mocked in that prank years before.

There is a huge difference between writing something under your own name and anonymously crafting it as part of a prank. Unfortunately, the authorities twisted the narrative to suit their version of events.

The fact that no less than Magistrate Carol Peralta explicitly stated in his official court sentence that I used animals already found dead on the roads speaks volumes—especially considering he was, as I said, exacting his own revenge on me in that very same sentence. The fact that my three pet cats were left untouched at home—and that no one even investigated them—was enough to convince the psychiatrists, who in turn convinced Peralta. Even the police had no choice but to acknowledge the anomaly.

Peralta had no option but to include that fact, considering the impact my case had 'caused to society in general'—perhaps also in an attempt to sugarcoat the sentence—fully aware of the severity of what he was doing to me. Still, he never questioned the frame-up orchestrated by the same police, whose accusations were clearly intended to portray me as the total opposite of who I am - namely, as an animal killer. It was an act of revenge meant to destroy my character and stir up unjustified hatred against me. While you're trying to downplay the severity of Peralta’s actions, his revenge, alongside the police’s, was both deliberate and undeniable.

Would you have remained silent if your employer repeatedly made unjustified deductions from your salary? So how can I be expected to stay quiet in the face of far worse abuses — being falsely labeled as mentally ill, drugged, slandered, and subjected to relentless, unfounded hatred? Locked away, kidnapped, and mistreated at will — and that’s just part of it.

What I never anticipated was the sheer level of impunity and corruption enjoyed by the powerful in Malta, protected by a tight network of “friends of friends” embedded in the very authorities meant to hold them accountable. It’s staggering how little they care about being incriminated. I send them emails with clear evidence, documents, and detailed records — yet they do nothing. By refusing to act, they make themselves complicit. They aren’t even ashamed of being exposed, even as I publish everything on my website, accessible to the public 24/7.

It’s like the story of a woman who dares report her abusive husband. He knows no one will stand up to him, thanks to his connections. So instead of facing consequences, he escalates — isolates her, retaliates, limits her access to the internet or ways to communicate, punishes her with vindictive cruelty, paints her as unstable so people doubt her, drugs and sedates her to keep her from resisting. And society? It stays silent.

And it’s the same in Psychiatry — the victim has the support of no one, while the abuser has everyone ready to cover for him.

Actually, I began my fight in my first court case by reporting Magistrate Carol Peralta, my lawyers, and Psychiatrist David Cassar. But from the start, I realized that the small fish never ate the big one. After feeling some relief that my case was no longer being presided over by Peralta, I essentially put the fight aside. I then tried to exploit the falsehood that I had been labeled as mentally insane, a tactic to protect Peralta’s career, which indirectly spared me from the repercussions of my misdeeds. Meanwhile, my lawyer was making a fool of me; otherwise, I would have dared to turn my case against my opponents for the abuses they inflicted on me. However, something like that is unimaginable in the corrupt system of Maltese courts, where the friends you have, the enemies you make, and the money involved can change everything.

When the final sentence was delivered, I ended up spending only two months locked up and managed to save my job, so I didn’t care much about continuing the fight to clear my name, knowing the risks and the corrupt nature of the system. If I had spent more time locked up or been forced to take medication or receive injections, that would have been a different story.

In my second court case, there was so much unfounded hatred stirred up against me, with the police framing me with macabre accusations. This, in turn, gave psychiatrists free rein to experiment and abuse me with so-called psychiatric treatments, keeping me locked in hospital. In the end, it was a matter of getting busy living or getting busy dying. This time, I chose to fight back against the system, particularly the evil of psychiatry.

Actually, they were intended as part of an effort to intimidate me and to prevent me from exposing those who abused the system — the very people I had reported in the first place. Ask yourself: if I had written that a local grocer is a fraudster, would you expect him to request a RoFoCo against me, or to hire a lawyer to clear his name and, if necessary, take the matter to court?

Everything I reported was written in black and white, often supported by photos, videos, or documents, and uploaded to my website as digital proof. The hypocrisy is that the evidence is still online — even after they vindictively imposed one RoFoCo after another — which clearly shows they weren’t issued because I wrote anything untrue or abusive.

In fact, my website has remained online for several years. Yet, there has never been an order to shut it down, no court case has been brought against me, and I have never faced a single defamation lawsuit. This proves how careful I have been not to write anything criminal, misleading, or abusive — especially about those in power.

What is actually abusive are the RoFoCos themselves and the dishonest tactics used to vindictively impose them on me.

Don’t be afraid to report abuse. To protect yourself from retaliation, always gather evidence or have witnesses. It’s best to send an email, so you have a written, time-stamped record. If they ignore your report, that’s on them—it makes them complicit, especially when your evidence is clear. Their silence, or refusal to investigate, often means they’re protecting someone close or afraid of what the truth might reveal.

Never write anything abusive or false. If they focus on attacking one small lie, they risk confirming everything else you said by staying silent on it. They usually won’t take that risk. Don’t fall for their tricks or provocations. Stay calm, confident, and don’t let them scare you. Every new abuse you suffer only strengthens your case and shows their true nature.

Be careful when someone—especially a narcissist or manipulative figure like a psychiatrist—makes promises or acts like they’re on your side. Stay skeptical. Most importantly, never give up. Believe in yourself and in the truth. One day it will come out. Being remembered as someone who stood for what’s right is already a powerful victory—even if you end up paying a heavy price.

Once your

Once your

Once your