Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 11 Out of 200: Cannot Censor His Spouse, Accusations Are Repeated Today
He already has a history of threatening to sue gay people in America; he cannot take criticism too well and he misuses "privacy" (abuse of process) to demand takedowns [1, 2, 3]
Very, very afraid that people will see his own admission that he had said transphobic things as a younger adult (early twenties) - something that he does not deny and even openly acknowledged at one point in social control media - he would upload our counterclaim to his site and then moan about "copyright/s" in frivolous efforts to take down pages he dislikes. We'll come to this in the future because double standards are abundant everywhere we look.
To give one example, during the trial when I cross-examined him for a couple of days (he was not permitted to speak to his lawyers overnight due to this long interrogation) he admitted to me that aside from trying to take sites/pages down by contacting ISPs/webhosts (like our home connection!) he had done the same to others, usually on "copyright" grounds.
And guess who has just doubled down on the tweet about the spouse, saying "fuck all of this, Matthew Garrett is a rapist, kidnapper, and abuser". (With over 3,500 views at this time his issue is clearly in America, not in the UK)
This was retweeted earlier today. I am going to make a completely baseless and likely plausible guess - or insinuate and venture to guess - he's trying to compel his spouse to delete that tweet (and others). Instead, it is being re-broadcast (retweeted again) today.
Controlling other people's speech isn't an art form; it can easily backfire and get out of hand.
Way to score an own goal.
I asked him how many times he tried to take down sites/pages.
He could not remember how many times he had done that. He gave a mere estimate.
Below is part of a document predating our counteraction/counterclaim [1, 2]. Written two years ago and not altered since (it has aged so well!):
Appendix II: History of Threats Made by the Claimant
The Claimant has a history of trying to coerce people to do his biddings based upon tacit and sometimes explicit threats, as covered in the Extended Defence above. The Defendants would also like to share a list of some the people he has threatened to sue and those he did sue. It’s possible that he did that in other countries, even if just tactically for the purpose of censoring unflattering information.
It's generally hard to estimate the number of threats rather than lawsuits as they are typically done in private/secret, as per the very nature of extortionate actions (part of the condition/s for inaction or appeasement is the lack of disclosure, akin to an implicit gag order; sometimes it's written explicitly in the letters, not just asserted between the lines).
Having said that, the Defendants will try their best to share what they know and they will give one example that is recent and did not go "under the radar" (silent threats) because it went through the First Defendant, via private E-mail. For some context, Ryan is a person who wrote technical articles since the 1990s.
Since around 2008 he had written on technical issues that affected directly the Claimant's work. He bemoaned monopoly abuse by Microsoft, effectively by technical sabotage.
Months before the pre-action letters sent to the First Defendant he was sent the following communications - not the first such veiled threats of lawsuits against Ryan who, just like the Claimant's, resides in the US and was already getting innuendo to the effect of "I will sue you".
Query about poster on your website
Hi Roy,[...]
is a post on your website that contains defamatory claims about me. Under section 5 of the defamation act of 2013, you are not liable if someone else posted this. However, if you did not post it, you are required to provide me with the details required to contact the individual who did post it - therefore, within the next 48 hours, you are required to provide me with the name and contact details of the individual who did post it, since the available details do not provide enough information for me to bring action against the poster. Failing to do so would result in you being liable for the content the section 5 of the defamation act of 2013.
The post in question is allegedly posted by "Ryan", and includes the assertion that [...] Providing me with the poster's name and email address is sufficient to satisfy your obligations under the law.
Failure to provide me with this information will, under section 5 of the defamation act of 2013, prevent you from asserting a defence that you did not post this defamatory content. In the event that you do not feel that this is not a compliant notice, section 4 of the defamtion (operators of websites) regulations of 2013 require you to notify me of which requirements have not been met.
You may contact me via email at mjg59@srcf.ucam.org.
The Defendant never responded to the sender (ever). The Defendant didn't respond to this either.
It is the message that bears clues as to the modus operandi. The Defendant believes that the (to-be) Claimant is basically trying to threaten him into giving the address of someone else - to possibly serve legal papers to a US citizen who can barely even pay his basic bills (he admits this in public) and would thus fold at any demand, as he's already vulnerable. It is rather self-evident. The overzealous Claimant also publicly posts people's home addresses - another reason Techrights and Tux Machines have flagged him as a troublemaker to avoid engaging with in any form whatsoever. He boasts about breaking into other people's devices, not just 'hacking' the law. Why would such a person merits any respect or be entertained? █
