Court's Decision Misused in Attempt to Hide Transphobia (Censoring Perfectly Factual Articles About One's Own Words, Made in Public)
This article conveys simple facts and observations. It concerns a number of very serious matters though. It is published with the best of intentions, even if it's not worded perfectly. I Am Not a Lawyer (IANAL), I am a Litigant in Person who values the rights of women and of all human beings. My understanding, having researched the matter in relation to British law, is that the tweets can be included at the end* and alluded to in my own words/interpretation as long as I don't blindly assert they're wholly true and don't suggest they're anything but opinions of a person of relevance.
Pursuing a Permission to Appeal
Last Monday we received a draft decision of a Judgement; we believe the decision will be appealed (pending permission given by the High Court** or the Court of Appeal). For those who don't live in the UK or don't know the legal system here: "The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals."
We won't comment any further on the grounds for appeal, not at this point anyway. We trust the Court to do what is right and just. We've always shown nothing but full and utter respect to the Court; we don't think anybody in the Court would deem us rude or disrespectful. In her decision, the Judge said "Dr Schestowitz [...] did so courteously" (she deemed my cross examination to be courteous). I always said I'd fully respect the Court's wishes.
Unsettled Matters
Aside from the above, there are 3 other applications (already attached to the latest application; the Court said it hadn't received the last one despite the Post Office/Royal Mail formally confirming to us a successful delivery, as noted several times to several Clerks of several Masters).
I believe strongly that at least two of them must be revisited and decided upon as a sworn witness testimony proves the cases are in fact connected and moreover the witness statements provided by Brett Wilson LLP and its clients contained false statements (despite being signed with a "Statement of Truth"), i.e. critical statements that a Judge based his decision upon in our absence.
As one reader put it to us, "that 'secret' meeting with the court to which you were not invited was harmful and one other thing too" (we'll spare further details for now; I wrote about this in other blogs and it's not critical at this point).
My wife and I got abused, hence the counterclaim [1, 2]. We got abused to the point where the police accepted that hate crimes had been committed. The other party did not disprove in any shape or form any of that (about the abuse itself), it just managed to convince the Judge that their client wasn't responsible for that particular abuse. The Judge wasn't convinced based on the evidence we could provide (Tor was used and anonymity is a difficult, precarious matter - something necessitating expert testimonies).
In fact, the Judgement is talking about the sockpuppet accounts in IRC (the word "sockpuppet" is used a lot in the Judgement).
My wife quoted points 69 and 70 from the Judgement (among others), as it almost confirms or serves to reinforce suspicions that this legal action dated April 2024 (and again in October 2024 - only weeks after our counterclaims - by an associate of Garrett, who he admitted under oath he directed towards the same law firm and barrister) was done to hurt us financially, impeding efforts to properly proceed with our counterclaim by presenting evidence, e.g. in the form of high-profile witnesses from the United States (it is extremely expensive). Put another way, they were likely gaming the system by chaining two lawsuits. It also weakened our capacity to perform investigative journalism regarding IBM, EPO, and all sorts of other topics of broader public interest.
This cannot be trivially ignored. We believe the matter should be considered in light of new information. It came to light less than a month ago.
Censorship Overreach
As I explained to the Court last week, the other party is trying to censor lots of articles in Techrights which in no way concern the case or the issues dealt with in the case, so it would be a travesty for UK journalism (or journalism in any other country) if quoting the words of an American like an American President - right here in the UK - would be deemed impermissible without even due process just because it's asserted to be embarrassing. It would be a daunting precedent. Moreover, those articles predate the lawsuit by 2 years, so clearly there's an issue of lawfulness here.
This also reaffirms the assertion that this case was brought forth in an effort to generally suppress all unflattering (but fair and factual) coverage of technical issues or about an American working for American monopolies/monopolists. If not dealt with prudently, it would be a carte blanche for editorial control over the sites - even over articles published years ago and not challenged by any legal process (because such a challenge would lack merit and also be out of time, a la statute of limitations).
We'll revisit this point in a moment. It's a very crucial point and - inter alia - also relevant to the fate of the BBC.
Addiction and Lock-up
Back in June we wrote about addiction problems or harms that addiction can do to families by focusing on alcohol. Months later, or just earlier this month, the person who tries to censor us wrote in public: "The sort of day where I just drank an entire gin and tonic before realising I hadn't put the gin in it"
He then said: "Why can't the gin and tonic wake up with the gin already in it" (remember he showed alcoholic beverages while teaching university students)
This seems relevant because, according to the spouse (husband or wife; we'll just say spouse), alcoholism is a theme that recurs. The spouse says he decided to effectively lock up the spouse, then steal his/her/their money, allegedly after saying it's because she/he/they drank too much booze.
I'll just say "spouse" because it is a transgender spouse and I don't want risk using the wrong word somewhere. I honestly don't know or am not sure what pronoun to use. I was told that "partner" is considered offensive to some.
One theme or motif to be observed here is incredible hypocrisy.
From those who accuse others of what they themselves are.
The lawsuit, funded by a third party (by one's own admission), came from a person who had spent years stalking me non-stop (this is undeniably true; he would not deny this), more so after going hard on Richard Stallman.
After spending years condemning Jake Appelbaum, who allegedly sexually abused the spouse (there was no police complaint that we know of), that very same spouse accuses him of stealing money. That seems like a very abusive relationship and he has said himself that in his lifetime he has had a history of Domestic Violence (DV). He said this in IRC. Whose DV? Or who by? He didn't specify much beyond that.
Now, according to what the spouse says, he paid to have the spouse drugged and raped. We don't argue that it is true, that's just what happened according to the spouse. If so, it would seem like a case of projection (again) about Gilmore and drugging. Accusing others of what one does? On Wednesday afternoon, or on the last Wednesday of October, I said that I shall send to Garrett's solicitors "further dislosures" or "further documents" with the latest from Garrett's own spouse, saying "this is from your client's spouse".
They tried hard to pretend not to see this. The implicit message, to them, was: 1) it's not just that your client may have no good reputation to lose; 2) it's also the fact that if this damage is done to your client, as per one of your points/allusions, and any damage done to your client is more likely to be in America, not England.
In the trial I argued that there's almost no evidence of any damage in England (he hasn't lived or worked in England since 2009, by his own admission!) and the real issue is in another continent. And if there is damage in America, surely it's an American issue, possibly out of time to properly pursue, and it would be irrational to think he's not bothered about what's said in America by his own spouse. Put another way, the real risk to his reputation had nothing to do with my wife and I but with "you and your spouse" (and he, by himself, led to this, with damaging posts not sent privately but posted in public, already seen by over 10,000 people according to Twitter/X.com metrics).
From my readings of what the spouse wrote, he possibly stole money from the spouse's own personal accounts to pay for litigation (which I deem to be SLAPP or SLAPPs) against my wife and I. According to the spouse, even his own parents are aware of how sinister or evil or abusive he really is (they raised him, so they should know).
If Americans with a million dollars to spend on suing me and wife are themselves abusing women (one was charged having been arrested for strangulation of women), what does that say about their treatment of women? If a person is attacking his spouse, then attacking/scaring my wife, then asking for help from a serial strangler of women (who worked for Microsoft at the time of his arrest for strangulation), what is an outsider supposed to think?
We also regret we must say that this legal team has a history to that effect. It needs to recognise that this trend - a public track record - is impossible to ignore. Good law firms would not advance any case that can potentially bring them money but cost them in reputation.
Less than a day ago it turned out that our complaint about them to the SRA isn't the only one. Siobhain C. says they "were quite happy to ignore Brett Wilson LLP putting out a direct deceit to the public in a public statement denying their client was ever investigated by the police despite holding paperwork that reflects a full on 7 month police investigation."
We still wait for the SRA to get back to us. █
__________________
* My understanding as a non-lawyer but a well-meaning (who always values free press and free speech) humble citizen publishing on a pro bono basis is that merely reproducing screenshots of these public posts (even a month later, this account isn't compromised; nobody ever claimed it had been 'hacked') is "OK".
To be clear, I do not argue that one must agree, but one cannot ignore the voice of a literally hungry person wishing to be heard. In a free and open society we don't send "uncomfortable" voices to a gulag in Siberia.
** King’s Bench Division, formerly Queen’s Bench Division. Because the Queen died some years ago.