The Significance of the Timing of the Ridiculous Letters From Brett Wilson LLP, Acting on Behalf of People From Microsoft
A preliminary look at the timeline and what it tells us
Truth is better than fiction and this blueprint story (being told this past week) is all about truth, however creepy some of it may seem. Sometimes reality is worse than theory and occupations meant for (and called after) "law" attract people who pursue Mafia-like tactics instead. Powers misapplied for censorship, to give one example, interfere with democracy. A lot of patent law is nowadays used to curb science and technology, not advance them. We've covered lots of the latter over the past two decades. It's not limited to patent trolls. In the past we got targeted by copyright trolls, too.
Admitting what truly goes on here would definitely demand honesty; don't look at Microsofters for honesty. They get hired/recruited for a lack of it. So let's examine pertinent evidence before we give more detailed timelines (some time soon, not today).
Yesterday we talked about a debt-saddled law firm ("guns for hire") and showed the first time it revealed it had gotten paid (and still gets paid) by Microsofters. It's important. It was taking capital and was taking instructions from Microsofters (with Microsoft money). But in the latest case it's not just some random Microsofter but a "best friend" of a GitHub CEO (at the time), who also physically assaulted women. Who would want to do reputation laundering for such a person? There's one such firm that would do that. tl;dr is, they're ambulance-chasing in the name of "privacy" while seeking to remove assault/crime evidence by misusing "privacy".
But first let's examine some pertinent facts about the timing:
A. A parallel case was scrambling for oxygen. We prefer not to comment on any material details in ongoing cases with an active/open status but rather background information or context that's essential for proper transparency. So leave (A) aside for now, we'll revisit this in the distant future. This is related to [1, 2]. There are two cases (claims) we filed and no Defence has yet been delivered (it has been nearly half a year!), perhaps because it's too difficult to defend 13 years of trolling, libel and even cyber abuse such as hijacking other people's nicknames to impersonate them.
B. For that coming weekend a group of us worked on an investigative piece about Microsoft corruption in the UK. We announced this upfront. In the past, attempts to bribe the webhost (by Microsoft) coincided with big long series about Microsoft corruption in Europe. There are other examples like that - elaborating upon them can be done by linking to past articles.
C. As noted before, the deadline was set just 8 hours before the anniversary party of the site (might be a coincidence).
D. This totally coincided with attacks on our webhost, courtesy of online militants who had broken laws. We'll talk about those attacks in the future. This is something where full transparency is imperative when the time is right.
The whole episode has red flags all over - not limited to litigation tourism - and it merits deferral until it's all finished; it also merits referral to regulators of this occupation.
Did Mr. Wilson, who is about the same age as my wife, deem it worthy to deadname, digging up some surname from over a decade ago and then possible misuse a licence to exercise 'law' (lawyering up)? To scare women? Or more to the point, what does Mr. Wilson think of serving (as clients) Americans who assault women? Is there a policy on that? A British law firm attacking British journalists on behalf of violent men from Texas (who admit they were charged and don't deny the violence) can create a negative stigma for all law firms in the UK. I know from personal experience that benign and almost benevolent law firms exist here. I saw greedy ones, racist ones, arrogant ones etc. but Brett Wilson LLP is regarded as the "last resort" for people who no other law firm would wish to represent (or associate with). Law firms told me this. They basically argued that Brett Wilson LLP had earned its notoriety and, to paraphrase, Brett Wilson LLP would take the most ridiculous cases as long as one keeps paying.
In the future we'll illuminate why the timing matters and why we'll likely contact the regulator at a later date. There are also several NGOs looking closely at this. They recognise that this is abusive. Some even phoned us about it. █