HOW EASILY, a fearless freedom fighter ready to take on the world slips into the role of helpless victim, begging public sympathy, as soon as things go slightly wrong for him. I refer to bash-patriotic, self-publicising, forensic pathologist, newly-elected MEP, guardian of the people and moral conscience of the plantation Dr Mario Madsakis, who has been stitched up pretty emphatically by the cops.
According to a report by the deputy chief of the drug squad, Super-Mario had asked a cop under investigation for attempted manslaughter, for ten grand, to ensure that he would be acquitted. He had allegedly offered to write his report in a way that the cop would not be found guilty, if and when the case went to court.
The only problem was that the cop was wired up, and had recorded his conversations with the incorruptible doctor, whom he had met 19 times reportedly to negotiate the deal. And every time there was a meeting between the two, other cops had been accompanying their colleague, watching him from a safe distance. They also had telephone conversations, the cop revealed on Friday.
Interestingly, Super-Mario was also acting on behalf of the alleged victim in the attempted manslaughter case — A Christodoulou, alias Panthiras — from whom he had taken two grand to prepare a forensic report that would have been used in court.
Interestingly, Panthiras told Politis, which broke the story, that Madsakis did not issue a receipt for the two grand, in cash, he had received, even though the transaction had been witnessed by close relatives. Perhaps the VAT department and Inland Revenue would like to investigate why no receipt had been issued by the good doctor, even though I am certain there is a perfectly plausible explanation.
SUPER-MARIO’S reaction to these allegations was very muted by his own standards. You’d expect him to make a bit more fuss about allegations that did not just cast a shadow of a doubt on his professionalism, integrity and honesty, but implied that he had none.
Shouldn’t he have been on the TV news denying everything and telling us that the police were lying, that he had been framed, and that he had never met the cop, whom he had allegedly blackmailed? This is what we would have expected from a fearless fighter for truth, who has stood up to De Soto, Verheugen, Talat and Vassiliou, and single-handedly took on the might of the British army.
Yet he has allowed the cops and the media to trample all over him, without offering a convincing response. All he could manage was to appear on an Antenna TV show on Thursday and inform the world that he was innocent. He could not say anything else because he was a witness in “a serious case, a criminal case against a policeman who had shot a citizen”. All he could reveal was the following:
“I am innocent. I state clearly that I am completely innocent and that some people are attempting to stop me talking.”
Predictably, he played the patriotic card as well. “Some people, it seems, do not want my voice to be heard, neither in Cyprus nor in Europe. I declare that I will defend my right to express myself and give my opinion and I will defend the just rights of the Cypriot people and will continue to do so irrespective of the attacks I face. And I have faced many attacks, physical, psychological and journalistic.”
And then we had the courageous defiance. “They cannot silence me. Unless they kill me.”
With such an impeccable record of heroism, I am certain that Super-Mario will soon start to appear in the dreams of his fellow MEP, Yiannakis Matsis, who has the dream rights on the heroes of all our struggles.
DESPITE repeated questions by his interviewer, the defender of our just rights flatly refused to say who was behind this evil conspiracy aimed at silencing him. Was it the cops, the DISY fuhrer, Verheugen, De Soto, the Turkish secret services, British bases or his neighbours? Informing us would not have affected the court case which prevented him from saying anything about the other allegations.
The question is, who on earth would want to silence a man who is taken seriously only by people of below average intelligence? Those who do not take him seriously still enjoy his inane comments and self-promoting publicity stunts and would want him to keep talking publicly both at home and abroad.
On Tuesday night, for instance, the completely innocent MEP was on a TV chat show moaning because there was no direct Cyprus Airways flight from Larnaca to Brussels on a Monday. This caused Madsakis great inconvenience because, to attend a committee meeting held every Monday around lunchtime in Brussels, he had to leave the plantation on Sunday afternoon, stay the night in Athens and take an Olympic flight to Brussels next morning.
“This is a great inconvenience and I urge Cyprus Airways to arrange a scheduled flight to Brussels on Mondays. I am being very serious about this,” he said. Yes, he wanted the national carrier to re-organise its entire scheduled flights programme just for him. Why would we want silence this entertaining and completely innocent egomaniac?
This incident makes me suspect that the CY board may be behind the conspiracy to prevent Super-Mario taking his seat in Brussels, because it simply cannot afford to schedule a flight on Monday. If it is not CY, which then it must be the Anglo-American axis, which want him out the way as he has repeatedly thwarted their evil plans aimed at destroying the plantation.
THE MILLION dollar question is: why has Madsakis taken cover behind his parliamentary immunity, like a coward that we know he is not? No coward would risk his life for the just rights of Cypriot people, like the doctor has been doing for a decade. Being “completely innocent”, he should ask to have his parliamentary immunity lifted and fight, like an ordinary citizen to clear his name and expose the lies of the police.
PRO-GOVERNMENT newspapers, politicians and TV stations have taken the classic legalistic line in the Madsakis affair – he has not been found guilty in a court of law and is therefore innocent. In fact, several lawyers were quoted in pro-Madsakis Simerini expressing their outrage because the cops had recorded the doctor’s conversations without telling him they were doing so.
This was a violation of human rights and the recording could not be used in a court as evidence, the morally upright lawyers insisted. The police had claimed that a deputy had, allegedly, blackmailed a police officer and all they could do was criticise the methods used by the cops, which seem perfectly legitimate. Nobody protests when recordings are used to catch drug traffickers.
In any advanced democracy, the career of the politician involved would have been finished on the strength of the recordings, but in the plantation we care only about human rights and nobody has done wrong unless this has been proved in a court of law.
HAD THE person involved in the case been a ‘yes’ campaign politician, of course, Simerini would have crucified him as it had done in the case of Geroge Vass, who was accused by an Athens newspaper of striking a business deal worth millions with Lord Hannay and in exchange offered Britain extensive rights on Cyprus’ territorial waters. There was no shred of evidence to support the story, but Simerini and Sigma TV presented it as if it was the absolute truth. And the rent-a-quote Simerini lawyers, oblivious to the rights of the accused, were more than happy to put the boot in.
BACK IN November of 2002, just after the first satanic A-plan had been submitted, Madsakis would go on radio shows and accuse the Clerides team – Papapetrou, Cassoulides, Markides – of being traitors for negotiating such an unfair agreement. “And traitors are executed,” he would conclude. Had any of them ever been found guilty of treason by a court of law? No, so why had the crazy doctor declared them traitors?
And before the referendum, the patriotic Super-Mario, would appear on radio stations accusing journalists and politicians of being generously bribed by the Yanks in order to support the A-plan. Did he have any evidence? No. Had a court of law found any journalist guilty of taking bribes? No. So why was the crazy doctor ranting and raving about bribery, traitors etc. Surely he should have shown a little more understanding, knowing how difficult it is to make ends meet in Cyprus.
HAD THE government tried to cover up the Madsakis case? Not according to the Ethnarch, who said he had given instructions to the Attorney-general to act accordingly. Justice should be left to take its course. And the AG, found that the police had inadequate evidence to justify applying to the Supreme court for the lifting of Madsakis’ parliamentary immunity.
This is not the only interpretation of the law. One legal expert, who has worked at the AG’s office, pointed out that the cop’s testimony was more than adequate to start procedures. As for the taped conversations, there was no reason why they could not have been used in court as evidence. Who do you believe?
The Ethnarch, who knew about the recordings since April 23, must have been certain that no charges would have been brought against Super-Mario otherwise he would not have let him stand as a DIKO candidate in the Euro-elections (the decision was taken a month later). However, he said that his instructions were for justice to be allowed to take its course.
Imagine what a humiliation it would have been for the plantation if, a month after Madsakis took his seat, the plantation applied to the Euro-parliament for the lifting of his immunity, so as to charge him in connection with a case of blackmail of a police officer. Did our wise Ethnarch not consider this risk? After all, the AG did say he would order an investigation if the cops came up with more evidence.
The Ethnarch’s line on issue was predictably patriotic, tinted with a touch of authoritarianism. “If there is anyone who has a different view and believes I should have acted differently let him say so and expose Cyprus for not strictly adhering to the law and the correct procedures.”
Criticism of the presidente is forbidden because it will expose Cyprus and we must never forget that heroic patriots are always innocent until proved innocent, even if they are unwilling to give up their parliamentary immunity to prove their innocence.
WE ARE HAPPY to report that we have officially returned to the Kyprianou era of great diplomatic triumphs. The fact that we got the EU to force the Turks to include our plantation in the Customs Union agreement it has signed with 24 EU member-states was a major triumph. Make no mistake, but our Ethnarch will eventually bring the Turks to their knees.
Because we do not know how things work in Brussels we have a question to ask as regards the conclusions of the European Council, which welcomed “the Turkish government’s positive contribution to the efforts of the UN Secretary-general to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem”. Did the leaders of all member-states, including our Ethnarch, endorse this position?
THE ETHNARCH finally received a reply to his 3,000-word letter to the UN Secretary-general, in which he had lambasted Kofi’s report on Cyprus for its “serious inaccuracies and wrong assumptions”. Tassos’ letter also mentioned the “flawed negotiating method” adopted by de Soto who made “offensive allegations” and “utterly inaccurate” comments.
Tassos’ terse letter, which was guaranteed to make enemies and alienate people, was a monument to the Edict of Ethnarchic Infallibility, which is based on the simple philosophical premise, that he is always right and everyone else is a liar and a blunderer. So far, as part of the Edict, Verheugen, Annan, de Soto have been exposed as blundering liars while the Yanks and Brits as vindictive beasts.
Annan’s response consisted of three brief paragraphs in which he told our morally superior Ethnarch, in very polite language, to shove his letter, as he stood by his offensive allegations, insulting claims and serious inaccuracies. It is quite obvious that Annan cannot back down, even though Tassos has exposed all his lies.
LAST WEEK we promised to explain to readers what Debrett’s Correct Form, which Greek ambassador Panagopoulos has never read, actually is. A search on the internet revealed that Debrett is a publisher of books for British toffs, snobs and aspiring social climbers, telling them how to behave, how to address the different ranks of the aristocracy, how to organise parties, what to write on the invitations, when to send ‘thank-you’ notes and other such nonsense.
As the blurb for the book says, “Correct Form is the indispensable guide to addressing both the titled and the untitled, covering a spectrum of people ranging from peers to presidents.” It also gives you useful advice, like not to break wind while at a dinner attended by a baronet (it is OK to do so if the highest-ranking guest is marquis).
One thing it does not offer advice on is whether it is correct form for someone who did not receive an invitation to a social event, to write a newspaper article disparaging the host and describing him as a philistine.
