Law Firm Burgess Mee Does Not Fully Deny Participating in Abusive Litigation for Serial Strangler From Microsoft
Having covered this matter yesterday and this morning, we've now had the much-needed chance to give a "right of reply" to Burgess Mee. Knowing that Brett Wilson LLP is underskilled and understaffed (also in the IT side of things) - a subject we have covered and revisited many times already - it does not surprise us to find an employee of another firm, Burgess Mee, in many of their letters as a phantom author. The legal ramifications in the UK are very clear.
During the weekend I wrote to Burgess Mee:
Dear Burgess Mee,It has come to my attention that your employee, [redacted], is engaging in abusive litigation for Brett Wilson LLP, which he left years ago (he is not named as staff there). He repeatedly wrote me aggressive letters, despite me being a Litigant in Person, in which he represented a man who had strangled women, told women to kill themselves, and was in prison for it.
Please explain if Burgess Mee is aware of these activities by its employee so I can properly quote the firm about its position on the matter. If I do not hear back from you by Monday at midday, I will assume that Burgess Mee's stance is "no comment".
Kind Regards,
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This was seen and then passed to the highest boss, who responded:
Dear Dr SchestowitzThank you for your enquiry.
It is not correct that Mr [redacted] has been conducting work for any other law firm. He has worked exclusively for us since December 2022.
In particular, Mr [redacted] is not a litigator and has not conducted litigation in his employment with my firm.
I am not sure from where you have the impression that Mr [redacted] may have been involved in the writing of letters for Brett Wilson where he used to work, but I suspect that in his prior role there he was responsible for creating a letterhead that the firm continues to use. I suspect this is from where any misunderstanding has arisen.
Yours sincerely
I wrote back to him (Peter), knowing that the evidence 1) has nothing to do with letterheads. 2) all the other staff use their own name. 3) it's not some old account or an old computer as that was many years ago, it would simply not make sense. 4) Mr. Burgess (Peter) is answering questions I did not ask or raises factual statements totally unrelated to what I was talking about (Brett Wilson LLP uses the same tricks and used those as recently as a few days ago).
Here is my message from this morning:
Dear Mr. Burgess,I suggest you have a word with your employee and with Brett Wilson. I have a large volume of evidence showing he actively participated in this case, so I am not satisfied with your denial.
Please respond by 5PM today.
Yours sincerely
Roy
He has had many hours to respond. He could just pick up the phone and give an answer within minutes. It's not hard.
But he did not respond.
I interpret the silence as a sign that he either did not investigate this matter or did investigate this and prefers not to tell me (because it is embarrassing, the outcome affirms what I said). I don't consider him a bad person, it's possible that he has a "rogue" employee and maybe he's not even aware of it. Maybe I did him a "favour"...
I am not unfamiliar with these tactics, as 10 years ago the EPO took not only one London-based law firm but several; the latter even spied on me online, perhaps offline too. They were thugs. My lawyer at the time told me it was a very aggressive firm, a notorious bully.
The current employer (Burgess Mee, not Brett Wilson LLP) deserves to be aware that a senior staff - participating in attack on the press (which is not working) - got another firm "in the books", receiving money from an American serial strangler from Microsoft, who physically and perhaps also sexually assaults women and then tells them to kill themselves. From an ethical perspective, it's possible that such activity would be deemed impermissible - crossing a red line - in the current employer (one would hope that serving SLAPP from America on behalf of really bad people is not acceptable).
How many law firms in London would gladly pester journalists in the UK on behalf of Americans who spent time in prison for good reasons and had done even worse things (like copyright infringement to the tune of billions) at Microsoft?
We'll discuss the matter some more tomorrow. █