Judge dismisses case over 'nebulous and confused' claims by conspiracy theorist

A Constitutional case filed by a man who alleged a convoluted conspiracy involving, amongst others, the courts, the police and a lawyer whom he had published false allegations about, has been dismissed as null and void, with the presiding judge remarking that he “was not in a position to decipher the applicant’s complaint or complaints”.

This emerges from a decision handed down today, in which the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, presided by Mr. Justice Giovanni Grixti, dismissed a case filed by Publius Said against the State Advocate.

Said, also known as Leo or Pullu, 73, from St. Paul’s Bay is a frequent visitor to the Courts of Justice in Valletta. Last year, he had been condemned to pay damages to a lawyer about whom he had made a number of wild - and patently false - allegations.

A Constitutional case he filed in 2022, after his conviction for harassing another lawyer, who had been opposing counsel in another lawsuit, and for having falsely accused her on Facebook of being “part of the mafia,” was dismissed in 2023. In February that year, Said was charged with possession of child pornography, which the police described in court as “extreme.” The criminal proceedings against him are still ongoing.

The opening paragraph of Mr. Justice Grixti’s judgement summed up the case. “The Court took notice of the sworn application presented by Publius Said in the registry of this court on January 2 2023, which gave 20 days for a reply, through which he appears to be alleging a breach of his fundamental rights, [on the basis of ] the following premises and requests which are hereby being reproduced in their entirety because summarising them as a preliminary introduction of the case turns out to be very difficult.”

The sworn application was reproduced in full over the subsequent 40 pages of the judgement, to illustrate the reasons behind the judge’s conclusion.

The application that follows is best described as a mind-boggling and indecipherable tangle of legal arguments about prescription, screenshots of a video featuring Said, more screenshots of court documents to which he had added arrow diagrams and what are possibly paranoid delusions, interspersed with legal maxims and an explanation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, complete with quotes.

The judge noted that Said “is now alleging that the undersigned judge had been “directly or indirectly” involved in the cases where the plaintiff applicant Said, as well as Dr. John Bonello’s client….in the course of which allegation the applicant then bursts out into an allegation of a frame-up committed by Dr. John Bonello.”

The court had adjourned a sitting in March 2023 after Said told the court that he had instructed his lawyer not to attend the sitting as there was no need.  After making verbal submissions to the court in the subsequent sitting, in the presence of his long-suffering lawyer, Said had filed a 216 page note of submissions, observed the court.

This tome, submitted by Said, had also featured photographs and made reference to a video which had not been part of Said’s initial application, said the judge. “Frankly the Court had been expecting the applicant to clarify his application….[in order to] avoid the drastic effect of a possible declaration of nullity. Instead of doing so, the applicant continued to add to the very, very nebulous and confused state by which he brought his court action.”

“Without hesitation, it must also be said that the further one continues to read the applicant’s note of submissions, the more complicated the issue becomes, the situation becoming nebulous and confused when thousands of euros are mentioned and prison time together with more photographs and arrows.”

Said had not used the opportunity he had been given to clarify his complaint, under the Court Practice and Procedure and Good Order Rules, said the court, before proceeding to deal with the plea raised by the State Advocate, namely that the application was not concise and clear as required by law and therefore, null.

The judge, after making a studied and sober analysis, quoting a number of previous court judgments in cases concerning such a plea, ruled that Said’s initial application had failed to conform with the minimum requirements laid down by law, “as it is unclear and confused in a manner which leaves the Court not in a position to decipher the applicant’s complaint or complaints.”

The case was dismissed, with Said also being ordered to suffer the costs of the case.