I know the identity of the woman posting some of the worst libel against me and my family on the Law Commissioner’s blog.
And I suspect that he probably does, too, because he praises her frequently on that same blog, though he clearly does not know the real reason she is descending to those depths and has misinterpreted the situation profoundly.
I find it necessary to make it clear at this stage that I shall not be filing a police report against her nor a civil suit for libel, even though she deserves both and also the loss of her professional warrant, out of concern for the third parties who will necessarily be drawn into the proceedings and who are going through enough, because of her actions, already.
She is a lawyer of around 40 who worked for a while at the Attorney-General’s Office but then gave that up and now practises law intermittently while writing a bi-weekly column for a Sunday newspaper.
She was never married, a fact that is relevant only because of her consummate lack of respect for the institution of marriage and her failure to understand that a marriage is not ‘just a relationship’ for ‘fun times’, as she has described her view. It also accounts for her shameless and systematic targetting of other people’s marriages, as a few (but only very few) women who were never in a committed relationship, not through their own choice, are wont to do as some perverse way of proving to themselves that committed relationships and marriage are not all they are cracked up to be, and so they have, in reality, missed out on nothing.
Some time ago this woman set her cap at my friend’s husband – and when I say friend, I mean friend in the real sense of the word and not associate or social acquaintance, as this is a relationship that goes back to our childhood. On the pretext of asking him round to her flat repeatedly to measure and remeasure for a kitchen (that is his line of work), she took advantage of the fact that he was going through one of those bad patches that happen to us all, and seduced him.
It is an old-fashioned word, but this is a situation as old as time, so old-fashioned words are best. Yes, he complied, but hers is the greater wrong-doing for actively setting out to break up a marriage, and worse, a marriage with two children in its care.
She then proceeded to literally lay siege to this man, who she knew to be in vulnerable circumstances that I will certainly not explain here, arranging meetings and bombarding him with very many emails replete with unsubtle sexual content which were discovered, tragically, not by his wife but by one of his daughters, who is in her early teens. The inevitable ensued.
The husband now lives in her flat and she maintains him financially, including paying for the holidays on which she takes him, which is very considerate of her and a good way of creating the ‘fun times’ which she believes to be the basis for a solid relationship. The wife and children have been left in great financial difficulty, with one of their utilities cut off and the others at risk of being cut off too because he won’t pay for them despite their being registered under his name.
Not content with having wrecked a family, this woman has spent the last year and a half encouraging her lover to behave reprehensibly towards his wife and children, one of whom is five years old, and to leave them without financial support on the grounds that the wife has a (small) income of her own and she can always rely on her parents for money anyway (untrue, but even if it were not, men should not transfer financial responsibility for their wife and children to their father-in-law, in whatever circumstances).
She has taken to writing articles about fathers’ rights (never obligations), the bad behaviour of women in separation cases (and the poor men who have to endure it), and why women should pay their own utilities bills – all of which overlook the legal and moral point that men have financial responsibilities towards their under-age children irrespective of the mother’s income.
When the wife testified in court, defending herself against a horrifically unscrupulous legal attack on her (an attack used to justify not giving her money, even for the support of the children) which was shamelessly prepared by the very law office where her husband’s mistress works, her husband’s mistress – the woman posting libel on the Law Commissioner’s blog – had the poor taste and indecency to make her presence felt and visible in and around the court, instead of staying well away.
So why is she targetting me so viciously with libel, malice, slander, nastiness, and comments that show she has not developed mentally or emotionally beyond the age of 15? Simple – she sees me as being in the wife’s camp and hence, thinks of me as the enemy.
This is not some great love story in which the individuals involved just couldn’t help themselves because they were meant for each other, but the most commonplace predatory, destructive behaviour, leading to sordid engagement and permanent, pointless misery caused to others.
In some of the comments this woman has posted on the Law Commissioner’s blog, she attacks not just me and all my sisters (while, crucially, transparently and stupidly, ‘flattering’ my husband to allow herself more options, as she no doubt sees it, for spiteful retaliation), but also her lover’s wife and her sister.
In her frenzy, she gave herself away, even though her identity was immediately obvious from other evidence about which I shall say nothing, and which reveals some extent of her pathological, stop-at-nothing, but ultimately infantile and unevolved nature.
The Law Commissioner likes and admires this woman. She likes and admires him (and has written about it). Should we be surprised? Of course not.
What should surprise us is that the Law Commissioner doesn’t know the real reasons she is doing all this, and imagines that I hate her guts (I don’t – I just find her pitiable and worthy only of contempt) for reasons he has misinterpreted completely and utterly.
I am not surprised, either, that the Law Commissioner allows his blog to be used as a vehicle for this cheap, wholly indecent woman to mock her lover’s wife and her sister, and to transfer the hatred she feels for them onto their loyal childhood friends, me and my sisters.
She is reprehensible, truly, but then so is her enabler, the Law Commissioner. If he has no respect for himself, enthusiastically allowing himself to be used in that vile manner, then he should at least have respect for the office he holds.
69 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Can I have a go?
(Name correctly supplied but deleted).
[Daphne – I am not accepting comments that speculate on the identity of the individual concerned. If I wished to make her name public, I would have done so myself in the actual post.]
NAME CORRECTLY SUPPLIED AND DELETED.
It was your newspaper column about LIKES that triggered off her frenzy (The Malta Independent – last Thursday). Maybe she thought it was about her. Was she right?
[Daphne – Yes, I noticed the frenzy followed from that. A clear sign of a guilty conscience. It could have been about anyone.]
The link between the case you illustrate in your column about “Likes” and this woman must have been perceived by her to be ‘a personal attack’. However, her retaliation completely lacks the correctness, relevance and refinement of your contribution, as does her choice of forum.
I had a quick look at the link on Franco Debono’s blog and just could not read through the whole thing. It sounded more than a personal attack, but rather the ranting of a hysterical and unbalanced woman.
She literally went ballistic. I cannot start to imagine what this man’s ex-wife and children must be going through.
Not ‘ex’ wife. They are still married. Wife.
I’ll have a go too: (NAME DELETED ON MODERATION)
Never imagined she was that kind.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s exactly the trouble. That’s why some people just don’t see her coming.]
Sadly, I know exactly who she is. As always I feel bad when friends take such a wrong turning in life and in the process ruin other people’s lives.
However, she will not listen to good advice and now she will find that she has to pay a high price for her stupid actions. Shame.
It isn’t a wrong turn. It is the line she has always taken.
It probably doesn’t help that you have what she wants – a blog with a huge following. Where does her own blog rank? Nowhere close I bet.
[Daphne – There is more that she wants/wanted or would have liked to have/be, beyond this website. That is the nature of such people.]
Yes, jealousy does bring out the worst in people.
How terribly sad to be incapable of being happy for others be it for the loves in their life, their successes or other fortunes.
[Daphne – This particular person isn’t even capable of having compassion for the MISfortunes of those she envies or thinks of as her rivals, which is why she encouraged her lover to use his wife’s adored brother’s really tragic death, 18 years ago – a wound that is still bleeding heavily today – as a stick to beat her with in court.]
Is there no limit to the depths one is prepared to sink to? and I don’t refer just to this pathetic spiteful woman who I can only feel contempt for, but the husband too.
No matter what may have happened to the relationship he had with his wife, there is no reason in the world one should ever turn their back on their children.
The two of them must be really devoid of compassion to do something like that.
Is this the same woman you had mentioned a while back that was involved with a married man?
[Daphne – Malta is full of women involved with married men (and married men who are involved with them, and so many other permutations of this), so it doesn’t follow.]
My mate Spud used to say that the national coat of arms should have been a chair with a pair of horns, “ghax pajjiz ta’ pogguti u kornuti”.
Your mate Spud deserves a medal, dear H.P. Baxxter.
Well done for not mentioning names as there are also children involved. However the ‘man’ in question is known for his childish and impulsive behaviour. From what I heard he has even refused to pay child support.
[Daphne – You heard correctly. And if you read my post again, you’ll see that in this, he has the encouragement of his mistress, whose strange beliefs about paternal responsibility are no doubt fuelled by her own unhappy experience, whereas it should have been the reverse of that.]
Her strange belief about paternal responsibility is that financial responsibility for a child rests with the mother’s father and not with the child’s father.
I may not be one of the most experienced lawyers around however you have my full support in all court matters.
This is simply classy on your part. Prosit.
I suppose what people also might not realise to the full is that there are more than just words to your support as a friend, and that the action has been there, consistently, right through.
For her and for others.
For some, the only pure, principled and uncompromised channel that exists in Malta.
Utterly spineless people – the whole lot of them.
That the Law Commissioner likes and admires such a person is not a surprise. He looks up to this type of behaviour. Jaqq.
To be honest, I don’t have a clue who the lady in question is, Daphne. However, I must say I admire your sensitivity on the subject. Goes to show this blog is not as ‘bitchy’ as your opponents make it out to be. Prosit.
[Daphne – Life’s real bitches come heavily disguised as the opposite.]
You could not have said it better. Well done Daphne.
I feel like I wandered into the cinema halfway through the picture and after a couple of minutes realised the film is in a foreign language.
Still don’t understand why you won’t unveil her Daphne. She chooses to insult you through another blog, you know her real identity plus the additional attributes on her frustrated CV such in poaching weak married men because nobody in his right mind, or with the benefit of choice will take her and you stay silent.
It’s definitely NAME DELETED.
I fully concur with your rationale for not publishing her name.
She should thank her lucky stars that you count to ten before publishing because, given the number of correct guesses, your blog would have been snowed under with colourful stories about her.
[Daphne – I wouldn’t have published them. And in any case, they are not colourful but sordid. There’s a difference.]
I remember reading a blog-post about women and utility bills only last week. It was re-posted on Facebook by the author herself, I believe. This must be a sore point with her.
You’re confusing issues. It’s not a sore point. It’s spite.
Obviously she is NAME DELETED.
Found the post re utility bills. I actually couldn’t make head or tail on what her point was when I read it….now I know why.
I believe I know who you’re talking about. The true colours of the lady were already visible in Sixth Form.
Quite a lot about her has always been visible and still is.
Obviously you have the wrong person since you refer to her as ‘lady’. This is no lady.
‘fun times’ indeed! Sordid people like these will never experience genuine and sincere happiness. Fun does not necessarily create happiness.
Min imaqdar irid jixtri. Halliha tinkazza.
Keep up your good work, Daphne.
On another note: what are your thoughts on the yearly Mintoff scholarship which shall be administered by the Labour party? According to Toni Abela, the reasoning behind it is that Mintoff loved education and people who excelled. So now we’ll have our own equivalent of the Rhodes and Gates scholarships.
Mintoff was a vindictive person who loved nothing and no one, not even Malta, not even himself. Mintoff’s attitude and actions were not unlike those of the “woman whose identity Daphne knows” featured in this post, though expressed in a different way.
[Daphne – Incidentally, she admires/d him, too, and wrote an article saying so. No surprises there, either.]
Mintoff loved education? Pull the other one. It’s got bells on it.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130820/blogs/always-out-bullies.482906
This woman and the Law Commissioner seem to be birds of a feather and they certainly belong squarely in the Labour camp. That Joseph Muscat can see the unacceptable behavior of his Law Commisioner and other Labour appointees and not do anything about it is very, very worrying.
[Daphne – She voted AD.]
If she voted AD, she helped elect a Labour government. A Mintoff admirer who didn’t vote Labour? Is there anything about this woman that isn’t screwed up badly?
So you know who she is but won’t sue her.
This obviously implies that most of the things she said about you ARE TRUE.
[Daphne – Hardly. I am suing the Law Commissioner for the exact same things. You people really do need to learn how to read.]
Gee … it would be good if you read through an article before commenting! You’re making a total fool of yourself! The article clearly states:
“I find it necessary to make it clear at this stage that I shall not be filing a police report against her nor a civil suit for libel, even though she deserves both and also the loss of her professional warrant, out of concern for the third parties who will necessarily be drawn into the proceedings and who are going through enough, because of her actions, already.”
Does this need to be explained in simpler term for you to get it?
It will be fun watching these idiots remain silent as Franco is torn to shreds in court.
Nothing like legitimate means to demonstrate who’s in the right. Unless of course, the courts become an obstacle to ‘justice’ once again.
Here they are sniggering to some new found supremacy, when all they can do is bay for blood. The problem, my dears, is that you’ll never subdue us to your level.
And that will remain your problem.
Something tells me that you and your ilk are dying for your wishes to come true, Jon Jones.
With all the excitement you failed to properly read, or understand, Daphne’s post.
And in case anyone thinks this is some hot totty we’re talking about, let’s make it clear that if Punch wore Judy’s skirt and a dark wig, he’d be a dead ringer.
It’s always the plain ones who are the most lethal (hadn’t you noticed?), because they have to try so much harder and put so much effort into it. And because they’re so plain, nobody keeps a close watch on them as they do with those who are beautiful and so automatically considered ‘dangerous’.
In reality it’s always the plain or ugly ones who are the most likely to cause damage because men put their guard down around really plain women, and that’s how the plain women weasel themselves in.
Not only does she admire Mintoff as her grandfather did (and she wrote about it herself) but her father voted Labour this time and has been rewarded for it with a place on the board of a key state corporation.
How come there’s no mention of her own offspring, whose paternity was hotly disputed for reasons that will be obvious, in this post? You should have mentioned it to show just how far back her behavioural pattern goes.
[Daphne – Not relevant. My post is not about the woman, her history or her behavioural patterns but about her motivation for slandering me and members of my family on – of all people – her friend Franco Debono’s blog. So we’ll stick to that, if you don’t mind. The rest is her business and of no concern here.]
any chance of you uploading the text that she wrote on FD’s blog? now that he’s removed it we cant see it
[Daphne – Not to be rude or anything, but how can you possibly be serious?]
sorry …. thought it was a genuine request …. didnt see any harm in asking …. i do apologise
[Daphne – It’s fine. But obviously, if I am objecting to libel, and to others linking to that libel, I am hardly likely to upload that same libel here, am I.]
true … a blonde moment on my behalf ;)
No worries Betty… 167,553 voted Labour… how’s that for a blonde moment?
Well, two paragraphs down I figured out who you were talking about. She has no shame or scruples and has always been a Laburista anyway. I see her mother walking every morning and thank God she has decided not to acknowledge me anymore since I took a stand during the election campaign – against Labour and for the Nationalists. Well, they say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and her father has got his nicely iced bun.
Think she won an award this year so she must be good.
[Daphne – It doesn’t follow. ‘Award’ is a misnomer. It’s actually a competition, and it’s decided on the basis of a single entry, or perhaps two, from each person. The winners are picked only from among those who have entered themselves into the competition with one or two articles. Hardly an award. You can spend a year writing hogwash, then write one good article, enter it in the competition, and be judged only on that. The first time I wrote about this ridiculous ‘award’ was when it began years ago. I have never entered anything of mine, and I’m damned if I ever will. What do you imagine – that I have been entering it year after year for 20 years and never winning? I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and demeaning. Nobody should ever volunteer themselves for an ‘award’, and no award should be granted on the basis of anything other than a close examination of an entire body of work over several years, by people qualified to do so. But this is Malta. No wonder standards in journalism are so sickeningly low.]
This woman is regularly seen in Valletta, stroking the egos of Franco Debono and other lawyers.
Just the egos?
Why not use the proper name? It’s called flirting.
Ah bingo! It’s NAME CORRECTLY SUPPLIED AND DELETED.
Agreed about the award. My comment was sarcastic.
[Daphne – Forgive me. In Malta, it’s hard to tell.]
I’ve been scratching my head about this one since yesterday – quite frustrating – but I finally cracked it. I just did what I should have done in the first place and trawled through Frankie Tabone’s online Crap-Fest, and hello.
I remember the Neptunes crowd way back in the 80s. Some people just don’t change over time.
The impression I got of this woman is that she tries to be Daphne in her newspaper column and Giannella in the courtroom. She fails in both, and miserably.
As far as I remember, the last time she had a high-profile case some months ago, she was defending a Russian man who mercilessly threw his wife down a shaft in Bugibba and killed her.
Thankfully, her defence was useless and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Instead of hiding with embarassment, she then went on to defend her case in her column.
She learnt unprincipled ‘means justifies the end’ ruthlessness from her father, and mindless frivolity from her mother. The end result is a grown woman with the mind and emotions of a 15-year-old, who can’t distinguish between right and wrong.
That is some relief to reckon with that surely beats a tuna on toast sandwich and a warm Kinnie.
Well, we all know who she is and she hasn’t changed, has she, from her teenage years. In short, she never grew up. Still a teenager, emotionally and intellectually, but in a middle-aged woman’s body and with the potential to do grown-up damage.
What a sad upbringing she must have had to influence her in such a manner. Rather sad that she always wants what others have. Always. She could have got a husband, family and career of her own, but was always too lazy and uncommitted and now it’s too late so she has been reduced to stalking others and trying to get into their lives and taking them over.
Whilst I am so sorry for your friend, she is better without a husband who is a fool. He has now found somebody of his standard. Two messed-up ‘children’ from messed-up homes, together.
I agree with Blue that this man is better off with someone of his ilk rather than the decent woman who got married to him and gave him a family.
It seems that loads of foolish, spineless men have fallen to her prey. My, my …. in her screwed up brain, this must be quite an achievement, I’m sure – just like a collection of throphies.
However, the truth is that all these men are surely not worth that much. In French there is the saying ”Dis-moi ce que tu manges et je te dirai qui tu es”. Likewise, tell me who you frequent and I’ll tell you who you are.
So a decent woman should stay away from any silly and ridiculous man who, present or past, has in any sort of way been romantically involved or ”linked” to this prat.
Late guess. Michela Spiteri?