Brett Wilson LLP Unwilling to Disclose or Explain How 'Hulk Hogan of UEFI' Pays for His SLAPPs Against Us (He Cannot Afford These), So We Are Escalating
Escalated in the British authorities (regulators overseeing abuse by solicitors; Brett Wilson LLP has just been sued by its own clients)
Earlier this month, while we were on holiday, we received loads of verbally-aggressive E-mails from Brett Wilson LLP. We kept trying to get them to answer very simple questions; instead they kept throwing at us piles of unrelated material. At one point I put it very simply for them: "Please refrain from trying to change the subject and answer my question from my E-mail dated 3/9/2025."
Having made notes to myself (there's a big scandal in there, but we'll explain it only when the case is concluded), I can now say with sincerity that Brett Wilson LLP:
- Did not respond to the message (not its actual substance); it tried to work around the issue, so friends in Manchester helped us escalate this to the Court (via Post Office).
- Did not engage on the matter but changed topic. Even swapped "clients", using a "tag-team" manoeuvre to conflate one person with another.
- Sent us over 100 pages of material not related to our query.
The question we asked was very simple, but it was "dangerous" to answer because there are only two possibilities here (impossible for neither or both to be true): 1) Garrett ('Hulk Hogan of UEFI') lied. 2) his lawyers lied [1, 2]. Their hesitation in replying was understandable, but we must press the issue. We deserve answers.
This got escalated to their entire office (what's left of it), even Directors. The latter point is legally relevant and meaningful.
To sum things up:
- That some third party sponsors the SLAPP is a claim they did not deny, they kept trying to change the subject
- Only months ago they were name-calling me and saying "conspiracy theories" (for saying what turns out to be true and was true all along)
- Right now the tune is changing and they cannot keep up or persist with their artificial, false narrative (the phony sentiment they have expressed for nearly a year)
- All along they just didn't want to admit what was truly happening
- It turns out that what I asserted was not false at all; it was "right on the money" (literally, too)
- We still need admission from them in written form (we doubt they will provide that, unless forced to)
- British authorities are already informed of this
- And so will the Court
At this stage we're moving ahead and forcing the issue. Yesterday we sent the following message to them (we're redacting only the name of the Judge):
Your Clients: Matthew Garrett's SponsorsDear BW,
1. This week we are back from long-planned holidays and we have finally had some days to properly digest what you sent us non-stop (100-200 pages) while knowing that we were on holiday and because or despite that.
- a. You sent us large volumes of pages (official letters in our doorstep too) if not excessive material, akin to 'books'. We did not have time to read these or even examine them at some shallow level. We have not addressed these while we were on holiday (because of reasons specified in (2) below as well). Holidays are for relaxation, you're just trying to cause stress by provoking us into impulsively responding to false claims and distortion of facts (which you've done since February 2024).
- b. You seem to cherish your own holidays (e.g. when you miss deadlines in Orders from 200+ days earlier or cannot defend your client by the date specified by Master [redacted]), but not others'. This seems unfair and hypocritical. We don't owe you explanations, we can explain to the Court the real facts, nothing even remotely similar to a phony and misleading narrative/timeline such as yours. We also need time to properly study the law, we cannot just send text messages from some shack in response to your mountains of PDFs (you already sent us 2,000-2,500 pages). It seems clear you've devoted your entire Office to this campaign of intimidation against pro bono publishers, who lack legal representation (not due to a lack of will; it's just that representatives are not cheap - a fact you're repeatedly trying to exploit in overt abuse of process).
2. You have repeatedly contacted us
- a. during holidays
- b. during weekends
- c. during religious holy days
- d. during a funeral (death in our family)
- e. during our parents' ceremony celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary
- f. during an 80-year birthday party
- g. during our 13th wedding anniversary (which you try to deny by referring to the wife by a surname she had before we got married; you are perfectly aware we deem this both racist and misogynistic, for reasons we outlined before; you apparently did this deliberately as you try to vandalise our marriage by all means available, either legal or not)
This cannot all be a coincidence. There are rules for professional conduct. Please try to obey these.
3. Based on our research and understanding or prior, relevant and some very recent cases in the UK, the party sponsoring the litigation can be held liable, as can the law firm (your Directors are now personally involved in both cases that you filed against us, based on documents you sent us in June with a hefty bill which went astray and then again last week when we were still on holiday).
4. You still need to explain how your client intends to compensate us for what he did to both of us (even prior to the case).
5. Your client has just published a blog post; in it
- a. he is bickering over a security deposit (landlord), based on his own blog post and many social media quips (he seems very angry over a sum relatively small compared to your fees)
- b. he no longer lives in the cabin (the partner was taken away, too, according to what the partner posted in public earlier this year)
- c. he's merely renting a place
- d. he cannot afford to pay his lawyers, he asks third parties to pay (he admitted this and you keep deflecting; you refuse to talk about this and instead you've defamed me for asking; you did this almost 10 times already!)
6. We ask for clarification regarding (4) above. Failing to receive a response by 4PM tomorrow (Friday), we shall have no choice but to escalate.
Yours faithfully,
Roy and Rianne
They responded on the same day, clearly and unambiguously stating that they won't be willing to address point (4). It would only take them a few minutes to address that if they wished to. It could be done in one sentence, at most one paragraph. Instead they tried to change the subject, as usual, resorting to 1) gaslighting and belittling us; 2) issuing more veiled threats, based on patently false assumptions.
At this point their behaviour resembles that of the EPO under Benoît Battistelli, who tried to silence us by recruiting several laws firms in London.
Pressing the issue directly with them is clearly not working.
So today we've escalated it. It's now confirmed that the escalation happened (referred to a team higher up in the chain of command). █