Never Try to Justify Strangulation of Women (Not in the US and Not in the UK)
Joint post by Mrs. Rianne Schestowitz and Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It does not seem to matter to them what you did or what actual victims think, feel, suffered etc. (because they're not "clients")
The image above (not doctored) is how they market or marketed themselves to heartless people, possibly misusing a licence (to exercise "law") to do reputation laundering, PR, censorship/takedown by relentless threats (very much like copyright trolls [1, 2], except with GDPR and unfit-for-purpose libel law).
Recent and relevant: When the Credibility or 'Quality' of Clients Ceases to Matter, It's About Helping Rich Companies Like Microsoft Censor Critics (No Matter the Risks) | When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent | Brett Wilson LLP Does Not Deny Microsoft or Another "Third Party" Secretly Funds the SLAPPs Against Techrights, Bankrolling Despicable People Who Deserve Criticism
This is their very latest blog post as of last week (right before Easter):
Notice the date: (of what they're citing)
Imagine a world where people make money by enthusiastically helping violent men from Microsoft.
Imagine law firms writing blog posts about "strangulation" while acting on behalf of people arrested for strangulation in another continent.
You are already in this world. It is happening right now and it's visible to everyone. See the screenshots above; that's about UK law, not US law (no doubt their client/customer did it; no doubt he got arrested and put in prison, then in court, and he's not denying it; it was over "strangulation" although there are prior and unrelated incidents).
So now the law firm is discussing what strangulation means (legally). Why now? Rianne says, "does that mean you're going to justify defending the client who is not even a UK citizen?"
The fact of the matter is not whether he pays you or not (or someone else pays for him), the thing that matters here is truth and justice.
The screenshots above are rather revealing. Firms that small don't just write blog posts every day (or for no particular reason). Also, irrespective of the content/context, notice the time difference; why are they studying strangulation all of a sudden? Did something like our SRA complaint trigger it? Or do they have lots and lots of customers who strangled women (even in another continent while working for Microsoft) and need to censor reports about that? Nope, this boutique law firm barely has clients and its staff size keeps shrinking as money in the bank runs out.
So we can guess what's happening there.
To be clear, what they do here (in public) is probably scoring an own goal. It does not even matter what the term means in the UK, as this happened in another country. A Microsoft employee was arrested for strangling. And "we are looking for what is true here," Rianne emphasises. If "what we reported was true and factual," she says, "then all this strangulation 'investigation' by the firm is more likely a cover-up for them."
As for the strangler, she says, "if it hurts his career or feelings, then he has himself to blame, it's his fault, not the fault of the journalist..."
"If I was the Master", Rianne (Roy' wife) says about the Judge (they call them "Masters" in this court), this SLAPP case "should be closed."
It's a real shame. "This has become a collaboration of two people desperate to take down a journalist or blogger," Rianne says.
To the strangler, she says, "it was you who did this, what do you want from me? Or from my husband?"
To paraphrase her, "I am just merely reporting it" like my wife merely writing about the abuse she had been subjected to, only to receive more abuse.
And "the point is," she says, "is this true, is this real, is there a police report? Yes, there is, so what's the problem here, we're not talking about how strongly one strangles..."
The strangler should explain it to US police or courts, not here. "The strangulation happened, end of story," my wife says.
Why have the Microsofters dragged women into this SLAPP and abuse? One can only guess, and it's probably for no reason other than to provoke relatives and thus put outside pressure on the author.
What is wrong about writing facts? Rianne says, "this is factual, dude, accept it."
Even the strangler realised (years ago) that there was nothing he could do (after begging attempts came threats, which very much reveal an understanding that a lawsuit would be moot, frivolous, abusive).
He formally offered to drop the "case" (SLAPP) in exchange for nothing but censorship. No monetary aspects, no apology, nothing. So from asserting that I owe him over a quarter million pounds in compensation suddenly he decided that nothing would be needed? Really? So why did he start this? To help his GNOME buddies, whom we sued?
Rianne says, "there are victims here, there are women, what do you want from the journalist?"
"Nonsense" is what she has called this SLAPP.
Everyone should be able to see the same.
Now, let's turn over to the law firm orchestrating or facilitating all this. Based on the screenshots (above), ever so suddenly they may be looking for ways to spin or to explain how (or why) they took a strangler from Microsoft as a PR customer to bolster his fellow Microsofters' spectacularly-backfiring case [1, 2], which put him on the defensive, not the offensive.
To the law firm we say, never try to find weak excuses for 1) bad behaviour; 2) representing people who engaged in it. We don't want to hear stuff like "he didn't squeeze hard enough" or "she deserved it" or "she is still alive anyway" or "he was drunk" or "he is clinically insane" so "go easy on him".
Enough of this nonsense.
Society needs to protect women, not the men who abuse women.
What saddens us here is seeing a paralegal and lawyer/s suddenly having an interest in this old decision about "strangulation" (not even in the "right" continent). We can only guess why that happened. We are allowed to guess or form opinions based on known facts and pertinent observations.
The Microsofter who started this has a history of misusing the UK legal system to SLAPP (2021) and not following up, then lying about it under a "statement of truth". He knew all along that we did not remove anything, but we don't want to link to in-suit documents until the frivolous case/claim is dropped/finished. Telling lies and signing a "statement of truth" can lead to severe punishments, worse than what one may get subjected to in airports.
He basically ended up getting cheap lawyers (probably signing and executing anything without scrutiny), trying to get rid of articles that "hurt his feelings", to quote Rianne, then giving many settlement offers (more than we can remember). We do not settle or make concessions with serial defamers who spent over a decade harassing us over technical writings. This Microsofter is not serious about an actual day in court, hence the many settlement offers. We have them all documented. We're not speculating here.
If he's asking others - even a strangler - for help in a meritless case whose judge (Master) can recognise as projection, then he's digging his own grave.
To be clear, both perpetrators ("customers") are in the US and that didn't make the law firm blink. They could really use the Microsoft money (Microsoft salaries at the very least). The Microsofters are looking for cheap revenge through a broke firm [1, 2] (debt and hardly any money left in the bank) because actually winning such a case is close to impossible. This law firm is notorious for almost never winning cases. Law firms told us so.
So right now they're apparently in "damage control" mode. We seem to be seeing articles about "strangulation" all of a sudden. Are they feeling growingly uncomfortable about their choice of clients? Remember that this is a firm which we're told was notorious even before they picked these clients; they had earned this notoriety even outside the domain of media law.
Where do they go from here? How can they recruit female workers? Anyone knows that females working to advance "cases" against women victims aren't exactly right in the head. Perhaps they "need to pay the loan back" (student loan, mortgage etc.), but eventually it leads to low morale and poor motivation.
How many people go to law school with the ambition of working for a strangler from another continent. "Only a principled person would say no to this," Rianne asserts.
The above blog post is tactless, as is the timing. They needed to think very carefully about this (drowning deeper in quicksand), recognising that it offers a window into what their staff is researching this month.
Sometimes it's better to concede than to do utterly foolish things, ending up holding a bag (of reputational liabilities and risk of losing the licence to operate). Sometimes it's better and a lot cheaper to say nothing and do nothing. █
