Reporting Facts About Violence Against Women Deserves Awards, Not Frivolous Lawsuits and Threats
What is Microsoft's stance on women's safety? Or about staff's safety [1, 2, 3] for that matter? Will British judges entertain aggressive Americans from Microsoft because they 'tricked' some poor law firm [1, 2] into becoming a facilitator (by omitting key, critical facts)?
Yesterday we wrote about Mohamed Al Fayed's lesson to the press (Harrods should be out of business, but it's not). If the media won't speak out for women (out of fear, greed etc.), then more women will become victims and suffer immensely. There's no excuse for keeping quiet. Silence is a form of complicity.
Oligarchs do not champion women's rights; many are abhorrent womanisers, chasing skirts:
The corporations try to hijack the "women's rights" narrative. They call it "Social Responsibility" or CR ("Corporate Responsibility") - it's a form of reputation laundering and they hire firms to give the false impression oligarchs are in fact the guardians of those whom they attack. Apparently Bill Gates is a SPOKESPERSON of the poor! "DEI" is not the same, but it is sometimes related to it and overlapping it a little. Don't be easily fooled by PR. There's a vast industry associated with whitening the reputation of rich people; some of that industry wears the "hat" of "lawyer", issuing threats to take down unflattering information. It doesn't seem to matter if the information is correct. To them, what matters is that their client wants that information hidden from sight.
Speaking of "their client", they don't seem to mind the full context, chronology etc. All they care about is that they get paid. That's why my wife and I sued MJG [1, 2] (it took him more over 6 months to put in his Defence, and it was a really poor, sloppy defence; it looks like it was just some E-mail that he hastily wrote back with minimal formality and even outright lies*).
Regarding MJG's 'friend' or litigation ally, it is even worse. As I explained it last year when he first showed up (via the exact same lawyer!), "here are examples from yesterday's news (and yesterday alone) to show what we're dealing with. The article in the SF media says: "A tech executive is suing a journalist for $25 million for reporting, accurately, that he had been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence.""
Imagine that was just a few days apart from the same being done to me. He pretended to be in SF (at the time, due to Microsoft) while his real residence was his dad's home (or girlfriends' places). He lied to them about being "worth" hundreds of millions of dollars. That's contradicted by what he told the cops; he had almost nothing in the bank.
This is what the article said:
To be clear, what we published was not sealed. Even if some time in the future it becomes sealed, it was not at the time of publishing. So we did nothing wrong. It was perfectly legal and also in the public interest (he worked at Microsoft at the time, doing bad things).
The SLAPP was baseless. It was meant to help MJG, who was suffering and fuming after repeated setbacks.
This was classic SLAPP. It is just an excuse for covering up true information.
"That was yesterday," I told my lawyer at the time, "sounds similar to what Graveley does. Also see [Trump's attacks on the media] in the news; that's just truly ridiculous an attack on the media!"
It seems ironic that this timing was chosen by the Microsofters, who acted like Donald Trump:
That does not make sense. Nor do the Microsoft SLAPPs. █
____
* For instance, we never took down anything following these invalid threats. That document was signed with a "statement of truth". Does MJG realise what signing it actually means?