Projection Tactics - Part IV: SLAPP by Americans Against Techrights (UK) to Hide Serious Abuses Against American Women
This was always (all along) bound to backfire tremendously:
In the news yesterday: (already in our latest batch of Daily Links)
PRs need to stop being complicit in suppression of information via SLAPPs
Why Parliament needs to revive legislation outlawing SLAPPs.
[...]
One tactic used is the threat of launching libel or data protection claims against journalists to curtail public interest reporting, commonly referred to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). This is defined by the UK Government as “an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means”. It is a tactic that represents perhaps the most corrosive and pernicious mechanism in that apparatus.
At their core, SLAPPs involve the weaponisation of the legal process. Their purpose is not to secure justice, but to intimidate, drain resources, and exhaust those who seek to investigate and disclose matters of public interest, with the threat of ruinous legal costs doing much of the work. When a well-resourced claimant targets a defendant of modest means, the outcome is often decided long before any hearing. Journalists abandon stories, researchers shelve findings, whistleblowers remain silent.
In Part I, in Part 2, and in Part 3 (and related interlude/interruption) we sought to remind people of the harm, the full harm, in full context. Projection and selective enforcement by lawfare can obscure the broader picture. The real issue to reputation isn't us. It is the spouse, who is an American speaking about the American husband only a day ago:
And this was a few hours ago:
Says his own spouse. Not saying that I agree, in fact it's likely an exaggeration, but that's public and it doesn't look good. Therein lies the real reputation problem, and therein also lie some projection tactics.
2 years ago this person's American spouse or American husband (named in Part I and II, alluded to above) sued my wife and I. My wife merely wrote about abuse she had been subjected to and she neither invited nor deserved, according to the Judge. That Judge wasn't an American, she comes from Scotland if I understand correctly and she's the chief of media matters in the UK High Court. The question in the trial was different though and we were unrepresented (neither lawyers nor a barrister; the American Serial Strangler from Microsoft connived to drain our legal budget a month after we had filed two lawsuits [1, 2]). They've since then attempted to cause us serious harm and their case - filed from America - was 'so strong' (or weak) that the principal litigant publicly says his lawyer told him not to mention it in public (yes, that is a paradox right there). Yes, he actually said this in Social Control Media and we captured a copy! The way we'll always see it, these American gamed the British system and it's only part of why we countersued [1, 2]. So he says his lawyers tell him to keep quiet, then boasts about flying next week. "Hopefully (for him) a one-way ticket," I joked at the time, "because if he gets arrested, then the ticket "back" is a fare wasted."
At the time (for context) the American spouse openly made accusations of kidnapping, rape, and drugging. That's just what the spouse alleged. We didn't know if a criminal complaint had been filed. "One week until I fly to the UK with the aim of ensuring that I no longer need to be concerned about being arrested on entry," he said (while in America). Well, now (this month) the spouse is calling to revoke his citizenship (he has three nationalities but has lived and worked in the US since 2009).
The way we see it, the most serious harm was done to us and the American spouse, not to him. He defamed me in public for many years, stalked me, threatened me, and then threatened people I know, including my wife (all sorts of threatening letters sent from America).
British law says or "indicates that for the purposes of the section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss."
That speaks "the reputation of the claimant."
What about the counter-claimant? That too is a claimant. And not an American claimant but an actual local.
What about issues that were mentioned in public but we never pursued in court until 2024 (because it would be a waste of time and money)?
See, I generally have no interest in dealing with courts and didn't sue the company that defrauded me and my colleagues because it would take a long time and be disproportionately expensive. Both my colleagues and I were independently (by completely different solicitors' firms) advised and forewarned it would be a waste of time and money, even if we won by default judgement (even in a small claims tribunal).
Now, let's go back to the Americans...
Or the double-dipping "users" of the British system (for lawfare).
Tomorrow we'll publish something related to this but about patents and the UPC. We got sent some tips about a new sovereignty scandal. Why does Europe still serve people from the country that threatens to invade it and attacks its broadcasters?
Worse yet, consider the nature of the claims.
When someone is making strategic allies/alliances with men who strangle women it does not sound like a strong case; it sounds like gaming the system (some people cautioned me he would try to do exactly that). And he does no favours to himself by posting in public things full with/laden/spreading the word "f--k". He only demonstrates that he lacks reputation (and good standing) to begin with. And magically he claims to already know what judges will decide (even before they did). Because we were prevented from presenting evidence (procedural hack, in tandem SLAPPs to deplete the opponent's budget).
Weeks after the lawsuit began I pointed out that he was hiding away from defamation verdicts against him (they're hard to enforce from here against American citizens). I explored the option, but solicitors advised me that Americans could game the British system by invoking "First Amendment" (even if they disagree with the First Amendment).
Regarding serious harm, they caused harm when there was a terror attack very close to us (nearby), they were attacking us during holidays, then telling us we're not on holiday (which we regard as bullying behaviour). They caused serious harm to our fish, not to mention the birds we feed; a person with 2 jobs cried about "serious harm" while all along attempting to cause serious harm to others. There's a word for this: hypocrite.
The bullying carried on just hours after my birthday last month. Contrary to what they tell us, we know what we are doing and we are generally doing OK. We follow the laws. In their letters they try to lecture us with false advice. It's just part of a pattern; patronising, preaching from a high horse, feeding misinformation etc.
They just keep lying to us with bluster and deliberate misinformation (disinformation), both before and after the trial. We are reminded by legal professionals that they were looking for the cheapest and least experienced barrister, they also took unskilled and notoriously aggressive law firm with a poor track record. Well, from what we can gather nowadays they just take him for a ride, pretending that milking him for money is some kind of a VIP treatment.
As discovered earlier this year and last year, they were also bringing in secret money from a secret third party and the spouse alleges that their money got stolen from the bank. So who funded this? Was this even consensual?
The firm set him up to lose a lot of money (that he did not even have) and, when things got tough, connecting him to a Serial Strangler from Microsoft, which does him no favours at all (making many errors and trying to recover from procedural accidents that give away what they had in mind all along).
Looking back at this whole thing, the only way to properly address the matter is to meticulously document what they did and hope this will prevent them doing the same to other couples.
Moreover, some time soon I will contact officials (local and national politicians) regarding SLAPP-related reforms, as I always said I would. It is about protecting other people and being proactive about it. The country needs media, not media litigation 'industry'. █