Who Imitates Who? Plagiarist as Client (From Microsoft), 'Plagiarism' at the Law Firm?
Given this sort of attitude, should we also start scanning their letters - sent from more and more people as if nobody wishes to handle these - for hybrid elements from LLMs in case they use some LLM slop (their client was a ferocious advocate for plagiarism, which put him in legal hot waters including a $9,000,000,000 class-action lawsuit against Microsoft)?
HAVING mentioned slopfarms this morning, let's revisit the subject in light of the SLAPPs against us. Who does the SLAPPing? Slop BS artists from Microsoft, among others. We wrote about it yesterday. At the moment they are furnishing a SLAPP with more volume just for volume's sake, because... why not? Is that a poor man's legal strategy?
Last week they sent this PDF to me (about 95% of that - maybe more - is my own words!)
Yes, that's a page count.
They know they defend a man who was in prison. He was imprisoned for very good reasons, but this law firm could really use his Microsoft money. Without it, there would be overdraft in the bank, more debt, or bankruptcy. Remember this is one of those firms that would even represent criminals for money (in the name of their lost reputation, which they never had anyway).
Here's something for the uninitiated readers. A Microsofter's timeline: (not the one who helped Microsoft shut BSD and GNU/Linux out of PCs but the one who promoted Microsoft Mono - or C# - in GNU/Linux)
The above screenshot (just the number of pages, we don't share court material or inter partes items in public) shows a total disregard for concision (time demanded of courts or time spent by the other side), making up "volume" by taking other people's work, reusing lousy templates as Particulars of Claim a.k.a. POC (even forgetting the change the name!!) and throwing in spurious elements just to make the letters and claims seem longer. In the above large bundles of papers it's barely anything they prepared themselves; it's a large PDF where maybe 3%-5% are their own words. The rest? All mine.
Now, I don't want to insinuate a lot of their own words are also not theirs (or reused from prior cases), but if they're automating this process, then there are legal consequences, as recently covered in:
-
An Ontario judge tossed a court filing seemingly written with AI. Experts say it's a growing problem
-
UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court
In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist.
The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain.
-
UK — High Court to lawyers: cut the ChatGPT or else
Sharp and Johnson outline how to apply penalties for fake chatbot citations, depending on whether the lawyer intended to deceive the court, or they were just being an idiot. But a referral to their regulator is the very least penalty that’s likely to apply. Good.
This week:
-
UK judge warns lawyers of consequences for misusing AI [sic] in court filings
A judge in the UK has warned lawyers of the consequences for submitting court filings with fake cases generated by artificial intelligence (AI). [sic]
We already saw that in very official papers they put the wrong name and they also seem to be reusing a lot of text and structure in the drafting.
This ought to be a cause for great concern.
In their latest - a bundle where about 95% are my own words - they're 'impressing' with thickness, piggybacking other people's endeavours. Sort of like LLMs; harvest other people's work, without any prior permission, then produce nothing of original value.
I'm not saying that they're "BS artists" like this particular client of theirs, who not only lies to people but then boasts to them they he lies to them (sociopathic behaviour). He not only attacks the GPL but also tries to automate this attack for other people, which is why Microsoft now faces a giant, colossal class action lawsuit:
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XXVII — The Future of OpenAI May Depend on the Fate of GitHub's Copilot in Court ($9 Billion in Damages)
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part IV — Mr. MobileCoin: From Mono to Plagiarism... and to Unprecedented GPL Violations at GitHub (Microsoft)
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part VIII — Mr. Graveley's Long Career Serving Microsoft's Agenda (Before Hiring by Microsoft to Work on GitHub's GPL Violations Machine)
- Arrest/Police Report for Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra Alex Graveley
Yesterday was a deadline they specified for me (to say if I want a physical copy). Interesting choice of date for a deadline: it was our anniversary, which means we weren't home.
We know who wrote that message. And we also notice they've cheapened their service by no longer sending physical copies. We can speculate as to why.
In a drawer I already have about 700 pages (letters and nastygrams) sent to us by Brett Wilson LLP. It's like we have became their 'hobby'. We're not some business or anything; they just try to overwhelm us with threatening paperwork. Imagine a person and a spouse getting like 700 pages of stuff in a year - an average of 2 pages per day every day.
Now they offer to send 500+ pages more.
Who are you kidding, folks? Are you going to send a literally phonebook-sized parcel? To give me printed copies of my own articles? What's the point? Almost 500 pages of your bundle are my own work, which is Creative Commons licensed. As such, please tag the bundle accordingly and ship if so you insist (1200+ pages take a lot of storage room), including this very last communication of yours and the attached letter you sent back in February, which the Master must see. Hiding evidence of extortion to dodge accountability for it is textbook abuse (denying someone or preventing someone from merely mentioning what vindicates him or her). What you're doing right now is notorious in legal circles (and has been for months; NGOs saw that); you basically present a "case" where the accused isn't permitted to show evidence that demonstrates the innocence of the accused or moreover that the accused is in fact the victim.
But really, the very question they asked was facetious. They basically put together large volumes of someone else's work and then offer that same person copies of it.
If you aim for maximum volume, then print (to PDF) 50,000 articles in Techright and ship printed copies of those in a van. Bear in mind, you're going to need a lot of toner.
To the law firm, which seems to be reading (and then copying verbatim for a PDF) everything we publish: You really try to compensate for a lack of quality argument (or merit) with a quantity of work of someone else. Your claims are trivial to dismiss, hence the need for a TPI. A lot of the claims are just copy-pasted template of no relevance and what the POC says is overwhelmingly inapplicable. You are seeking to profit from American clients looking for "revenge" (and censorship) against writers in the UK who support the public's right to know and the public's need to know (your client's actions at Microsoft are connected to a $9,000,000,000 class action lawsuit against Microsoft). It's not the first time you do this, based on British bloggers who reported you to the SRA. There's a good reason for it.
Quit painting yourself as the polite victims. You are the aggressor here and you're now helping a person who physically assaults women and tells them to kill themselves - not to mention illegal business activities - because you profit from this. As for your other client, you milked him to death - to the point where after feeding his partner steroids and alcohol the partner ended up forcibly/involuntarily detained in a mental/self-harm institution (apparently for 2 months already). After he had sued my wife, who then sued him back [1, 2], it looks like a boomerbarg effect. My wife is happy and defiant; she had done nothing wrong, unlike the Serial Defamer, who still defames people online and relishes in groupthink in social control media "hives" (inquisition in the digital era).
Maybe you should start helping people, not by misleading some people and encouraging them (or facilitating them) to start bullying against people they do not like (in another continent, for goodness' sake!) and also their family members [1 2, 3]. Yes, family members! Being bullied apparently makes you guilty of something! You know who did collective punishment? It's called "Sippenhaft".
Whose idea was it to drag my wife into it? Even with the intentionally wrong name?
Quoting Wikipedia: "Sippenhaft or Sippenhaftung (German: [ˈzɪpənˌhaft(ʊŋ)], kin liability) is a German term for the idea that a family or clan shares the responsibility for a crime or act committed by one of its members, justifying collective punishment. As a legal principle, it was derived from Germanic law in the Middle Ages, usually in the form of fines and compensations. It was adopted by Nazi Germany to justify the punishment of kin (relatives, spouse) for the offence of a family member. Punishment often involved imprisonment and execution, and was applied to relatives of the conspirators of the failed 1944 bomb plot to assassinate Hitler. [...] the members of the family of von Stauffenberg (the officer who had planted the bomb that failed to kill Hitler) were all under suspicion. His wife, Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, was sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp (she survived and lived until 2006). His brother Alexander, who knew nothing of the plot and was serving with the Wehrmacht in Greece, was also sent to a concentration camp."
What did my wife do anyway? She merely wrote descriptions of the bullying she had been subjected to, despite not even being online or ever speaking to anyone.
Brett Wilson LLP's modus operandi: pay us a fee, we'll attack women and wives too! Premium service! Also Brett Wilson LLP: if there's a politician you dislike, contact us. We can engage in lawfare. The legal basis does not matter, we can use projected legal costs as deterrent.
This is not acceptable, and this certainly won't be the last time some British law firm does this type of stuff.
We shall write about this for years to come (it's a common problem) and pursue compensation/accountability.
Cadwalladr [1, 2] spoke about how these tactics help mobsters silence critics and suppress investigations into the unscrupulous GAFAM:
- Carole Cadwalladr: Facebook's role in Brexit and the threat to democracy | TED Talk
- Carole Cadwalladr: This is what a digital coup looks like | TED Talk
- UK: Anti-SLAPP Coalition reiterates its support for Carole Cadwalladr
Cadwalladr should receive rewards, not SLAPPs. It's preposterous that she is the one suffering for merely doing a good job.
There's a very good reason why the SRA complaints against you are progressing, Wilson et al. It is not surprising that staff is fleeing your firm and you look like a deck of the RMS Titanic, cushioned by a skeleton crew to keep up appearances. People aren't easily fooled by a Web site.
Finally, and judging by the news that we happened to see yesterday in our RSS feeds, their clients have once again lost a case. It got thrown out, it's clearly frivolous litigation. Mr Justice Swift said: “There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim."
Maybe Mr Vince wants to crowdfund a little with Miguel de Icaza, the friend of the major clients of Brett Wilson LLP, where media lawsuits are no longer filed (little business left except harassing my wife and I).
How long for can a law firm survive doing this? As long as people out there aren't aware of what they're doing and how they're acting. Hence these articles of ours are in the public interest, a form of public service, pro bono even. █
Also see: Arrest/Police Report for Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra Alex Graveley | When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent | Nat Friedman Had Left Microsoft GitHub Exactly One Week Before Matthew Garrett Sent His First SLAPP (Which Was an Empty Threat, He Was Abusing the Legal System of Another Continent to Terrorise Critics Who Had Just Unearthed Major Microsoft Scandals)
"Introduce absolute responsibility of kin [...] a very old custom practiced among our forefathers" -Himmler
