"Special Place in Hell" for Women Who Help Violent Microsofters From Another Continent Attack Local Women Who Did Nothing Wrong, They Just Got Bullied and Deserve Sympathy or Compensation
LAST month, at the advice of legal professionals, we formally reported patently abusive litigation meant to censor pages on critical topics 'wholesale' and prevent those topics ever being brought up again. Microsofters love censorship and SLAPP is like a "last resort", as it's a lot more expensive than all the other methods leveraged by Microsofters from across the Atlantic (even begging was attempted several times). They have a lot to hide, including material that can have them re-arrested and the subject of an ongoing class action lawsuit for GPL (copyright) violations.
Law firms would not easily entertain SLAPPs because they can lose their licence to operate for blatantly SLAPPing. So the Microsofters picked - based on price - a highly notorious firm that is low on money and is known here in Manchester as the sort of firm that would pick anyone or cases that no other firm would wish to (those people are lunatics with psychological problems; they even impersonate people - a crime in some jurisdictions). SLAPPs are generally a threat to a firm's reputation. When the Microsofters started chaining several SLAPPs they apparently broke the law too, but they're based in the US, so they know enforcing British law against them would be hard (or court decisions against them be moot, or barely enforceable except in particular contexts [1, 2]). This is another reason why such SLAPPs should never have been brought forth in the first place.
With several high-profile NGOs watching this closely (hence transparency is paramount), this promises to become a major embarrassment for them and, not for the first time, it seems plausible that the law firm will dissolve like Discreet Law.
In the case of the first SLAPP, it was advanced by a person who had been harassing and defaming me online (for merely expressing uncomfortable truths about sabotage he had engaged in) while the paralegal on his case worked as a waitress for several years (the firm compensates people with job titles, not money, same as Sirius Open Source did in its final years [1, 2, 3]; careers can be advanced by means other than actual qualifications!).
Seeing that there's almost no active media lawsuits left for the firm to handle, it is now advancing media cases for someone widely accused of supporting Hamas (which he denies) and two meritless cases (connected Microsofters engaging in obviously abusive litigation, breaking the laws based on what professionals say) aimed at me after receiving vile abuse, as did my wife, not to mention women physically abused. Maybe they should rebrand their law firm "Brat WillSueAnyone LLP".
Nothing says "Brat" like men who attack women, right? Those are just "guns for hire" or "bullies for rent" (to Americans looking to attack British citizens! [1, 2] ), even willing to work for men who strangle women while working for Microsoft - in effect attacking women from the same country (UK) on behalf of violent men from another continent as long as Microsoft money pays them to do so. Doing paperwork with women's help to attack women, who are in effect victims? When people act in this way it signals to everyone out there selfish and sociopathic tendencies, a hallmark of social climbers - definitely not the sorts of people you'd want to hire. Like women facilitating further abuse against more women.
SLAPP reform is still hot on the agenda (it'll inevitably come back) and we shall pursue it for years to come.
Is there some coursework in law schools that compels women to attack other women (on behalf of violent men), as long as they can get some Microsoft money in the process? If so, or if not, what should that tell law schools?
Inaction in the face of abuse against women is highly immoral [1, 2, 3]. Helping coverup of abuse against women is participation. If you make a living doing the latter you might wish to consider a career change before it's too late. █
