“Twibel” Actions Against Comedians (and Why It's a Truly Low Blow)
Related:
- Weaponisation of For-Profit Dockets - Part I: Hiding Behind Lawyers (or Guns for Hire) After Abusing Many People and Even Strangling Women While Microsoft Paid Salaries
- Weaponisation of For-Profit Dockets - Part II: Hiding Behind Lawyers and Barristers Who Lack Standards so as to Engage in Classic Corporate Extortion
- Weaponisation of For-Profit Dockets - Part III: No More Media Lawsuits From Brett Wilson LLP This Year, One Can Only Guess Why
A single day after I had published this explosive article about Nat Friedman (Microsoft GitHub CEO) I received a legal threat from a lawyer of his fellow GNOMEr and Microsofter. He complained about a "tweet" I had written weeks earlier (it hardly received any views and did not matter to anyone). It didn't even name anybody, let alone him! This fellow GNOMEr and Microsofter was sued by my wife last summer (I sued him as well) [1, 2] and then the best friend of Nat Friedman (they're still very close), within a few weeks, filed an 'empty' case (like a placeholder) that he would not resuscitate for almost 4 months. He only resuscitated it when the fellow GNOMEr and Microsofter had gotten in trouble (he "woke up" within days). All those dates have a lot of meaning to them. And the people are inseparable.
It's not a coincidence that 20% of those in Wikipedia are the same 'circle'. While Garrett sent threats to both my wife and I by E-mail he was making tasteless jokes to the person who had killed Novell (by convincing the leadership of Novell to sell out to Microsoft, his "true master"):
The "G" in "GNOME" stands for "GPL Violation Boosters" (they try to profit by violating reciprocity in the copyleft-licensed works). They are attacking the licence of GNU/Linux. They also attack the founders of GNU/Linux [1, 2]. They don't want you to boot GNU/Linux without Microsoft's permission. In the 1990s Friedman worked directly for Microsoft and ever since then he was a proxy to Microsoft and promoter of .NET. Friedman always worked for Microsoft. He still does.
These mobsters hope that the public - and especially judges - won't realise what they're doing and why (very likely reason) Nat Friedman became unemployed, soon to be followed by Miguel de Icaza. They want us to believe that it all spontaneously began with a tweet that didn't even name anybody. That tweet wasn't removed, not even temporarily, but they lied to the Court about it. Now they're in trouble, so they try to make up in quantities for a lack of merit or quality. They have even 'borrowed' several workers from other law firms (or family members not certified to practice law). It's abundantly clear; inevitably, it is metadata they failed to remove because they suck at IT [1, 2]. It is like quicksand; the more they move or the more things they attempt, the deeper they're sinking. Now they even admit in the open that what they do is "Public Relations", not just "Reputation Management". Way to choose one's clients. No wonder female colleagues are leaving the firm.
Suing people for "tweets" (or mindless, spontaneous online blurbs) is a low blow and the public didn't fancy that nonsense advanced by cash-strapped Brett Wilson LLP, with the exact same barrister who targeted my wife and I (even for a Serial Strangler from Microsoft; this barrister has no qualm about advancing anything at all!).
Brett Wilson LLP had already earned notoriety before it picked on my wife and I. People deemed Brett Wilson LLP to be one of the worst out there.
This is what happened when this barrister pushed a case for one alleged to be pro-Hamas: (based on interpretation of statements he had publicly made; finally, and funnily enough, his firehose of abusive lawsuits only backfired as they merely drew even more attention to what he had said!)
They also advanced stuff for a Microsoft thug, a mobster who thinks that because he found some "guns for hire" in London, then he can start bullying people in another continent as long as he and his buddies [1, 2] throw money into a hat to bury me in about 1,500 pages of legal papers (in a country where lawyers charge about $500 per hour, sometimes a lot more). The aim is to cause censorship through stress by extortion. Inducing threats in this way may be illegal. Daniel Pocock's public talk in 2024 covered some of these tactics. There are legal matters associated with that and also ramifications. █
