Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 12 Out of 200: Months Ahead of Serial Strangler From Microsoft Who Helped Double the Lawsuits (Funded by Third Parties) as 'Revenge' for Exposing Crimes
In 2024 I sat down and wrote about what had been done to me and to my wife, or even to other and very distant family members by extension (includes doxing). Many criminal things had been done, reported by us to the police (many cases opened by each of us), and several people were involved in the crimes (they were connected to one another, they communicated in secret as their disclosures reveal). Now it's time to tell our story, even if it'll take a very long time. In the same year (2024) the initial lawsuit [1, 2] was connected (like before; timing it everything) to a serial strangler of women. He spent time in prison as a Microsoft employee (not even 75 KG of legal papers thrown at us can alter this documented fact). Later we discovered that the litigation against us was funded by third parties for quite some time, set aside the salaries from Microsoft.
This was led - always spearheaded as usual - by the same barrister and law firm, which is a criminal law firm (it means it often represents criminals or is gleefully representing alleged criminals). After responding to their frivolous claims against me [1, 2, 3] (they're repeat offenders in this regard, a High Court Judge accused these lawyers of barrister of abuse of process last year for doing the same to others) I wrote down this appendix. I leave the text intact below, as it has generally aged well (almost 24 months later it is still truthful and well reasoned). It does not run afoul of any injunction either.
Appendices
Appendix I: Defendants’ Remarks
Several issues will be dealt with in turn to highlight key aspects, dealing (in turn) with problems inherent in this case and issues that can arise.
Defendants' Position on 'Harassment by Process'
These additional thoughts or informal notes are imperative for inclusion as they help frame the case in a suitable manner, set aside response to the above-mentioned preemptive, context-free assertions about the Defendants. In fact, the Defendants insist they too could initiate legal action - even years ago - but chose not to. The Defendants are not litigious and were never sued before (in their entire life). Nor did they sue anyone, even when they probably could have and should have. For instance, about 14 months ago, the First Defendant exposed and thoroughly confirmed - in writing from the pension provider - a scandal in his former workplace. He and his colleagues had been defrauded (pension fraud), but several different lawyers advised them not pursue legal action as it would be costly, lengthy, and likely result in the company filing for bankruptcy (Administration) and wind down operations to avoid compensating the victims or cover their legal costs. The First Defendant instead reported the matter to Action Fraud, his MP, and to Greater London Authority (GLA), the biggest client at the time. The matter was reported to several other parties of interest and feeble justice was thus achieved in the sense that public opinion changed and the fraud was widely recognised (even if prosecution wasn't pursued; apathy of this kind, i.e. inaction from authorities, isn't uncommon, as there is a conflict of interest, namely them being a client and enabler of the perpetrator). The First Defendant uses his investigate skills and writing capacity to pursue justice, as the legal routes are slow and expensive. The First Defendant wrote about 5,000 articles about corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO) and his work inspired actions by many lawyers across Europe, even international laws firms, as they were impacted by this corruption. They repeatedly praised the First Defendant for his writings, which were analytical and exploratory (including hard rare material obtained to prove the corruption). Techrights, with an extensive repository of about 100,000 images, documents, and articles, is invaluable to a large number of people in a large number of domains, not limited to technology and law. It covers a lot of exclusive material and boasts 100% record of source protection (it receives evidence from insiders). Impeding publication and freedom of expression at Techrights would have severe ramifications and would mostly benefit corrupt organisations.
Remarks and Concerns as to Costs
As some jurists said, "justice is not free, justice is expensive" (because the process demands salaried people). The last thing the Defendants were ever interested in was spending time in courtrooms, even as plaintiffs. It would benefit nobody because the Defendants are working from morning till night, they have no time or desire to deal with court cases (or even court papers).
The defence presented up to this point (in the Defence document) constitutes a detailed point-by-point response to pertinent claims. However, the Defendants insist that full context should also be provided to illuminate the motivation and background of this - at least in the eyes of the Defendants – in light of frivolous, intimidating letters from lawyers whose real intent is to harass and encumber the authors with eye-watering legal bills.
Long History
This affair did not start months ago (there is a 12-month window for filing of such a claim), nor did it start in 2021 when pre-action letters starting flowing in, targeting a distressed wife to the chagrin of men. This affair started in 2012 when the Claimant worked for an American company called Red Hat (now part of IBM, another American company). The Claimant did something extremely unpopular that earned him scorn and condemnation worldwide, in effect causing harm to all computer users by helping a monopoly and by restricting users' freedom to run software of their choice on their own computers. The Claimant played a key role in this and several people who stood in his way, including very high-profile people such as Linus Torvalds (the creator of Linux), were then subjected to a hateful, inflammatory and probably defamatory smear campaigns, both in social media and mainstream media, led by by Claimant. This is all well documented.
The First Defendant wrote about the technical aspects of the problem in hundreds of articles, but to spare the Court any technical jargon, it seems sufficient to state that the Defendants were perceived to be on the benign if not benevolent side of the debate, whereas the Claimant was rightly perceived to be in service of an American monopolist, which had already been convicted of monopoly abuse. This is very much essential background. Without it, it may wrongly seem like provocation started from the victim's side (the Defendants').
For the claims to prevail, the Defendants believe that similar abuses directed at them must be taken into account. The Claimant and his friends had engaged in despicable behaviour; they are the ones stalking and harassing Defendants for a period of years, it is not the other way around. They used sockpuppet accounts in IRC, hijacking other people's name (the Defendants have recorded evidence of this), and constantly provoking people - everyone in the channels - expecting to evoke strong responses. They were, in particular, picking on women, knowing that they are more emotionally sensitive and vulnerable (to allusions to violence), using their pre-marriage name (2011) and mentioning parents. These sockpuppet accounts also drove women away from the channels. This was intentional.
One must add that this wasn't the work of unemployed derelicts. At the time of the 24/7 stalking the Claimant was shaming people on behalf of crooked executives at Google (US). One is talking about a Claimant who made 6-figure salaries in an American firms while defaming and provoking people, even in these people's private networks, in effect protecting people who bag over $200,000 per year by slandering their critics and intimidating them. They were coordinating these attacks, sending as much paper as possible (since 2021), even 4 copies of the same thing, and sending people to the home, several times in fact (plain-clothed for "effect"). When the Second Defendant was responding to the bullies who had attacked her - not limited to the Claimant - she made it entirely clear that those were unwarranted attacks. She did not provoke and was in fact not personally involved in any way. She was explaining what she was subjected to, whereupon the perpetrators were responding to her with yet more harassment, by proxy or by process (or both). Her site that doesn't do anything for income. Her site has no ads and never profited from anything (it did not attempt to, either), which further aggravates and makes the nature of the abuse more severe. These are vicious attacks on a female volunteer doing public service.
Other Victims of the Claimant
To this date, the Claimant and his collaborators are continuing their long, ongoing campaign of insipid harassment and criminal defamation against people (accusing them or rape or worse) while hiding in some cabin or temporal residency where it is difficult/impossible to serve legal paper and where they feel sheltered by the First Amendment and other provisions (like invoking SLAPP when a falsely-accused man sued for defamation based on social media "hearsay").
One must recognise that this abuse is directed also at people who are more high-profile and internationally recognised than the First Defendant. It should easy to understand what other activists are subjected to, for instance Prof. Moglen, whom was compared to a wife murderer in public blog posts from the Claimant. Murdering a wife is not the moral equivalent of having a tempered response to somebody when provoked, yet these are the familiar antics of provocation for reaction and then public shaming.
Insincere Inversion of Narrative
Another emergent pattern of note is, the Claimant and his collaborators are trying to paint themselves, the chronic harassers, as the victims of "discrimination", "censorship", “abuse” and even “defamation”.
There are moreover strong suspicions and circumstantial evidence that, in addition to cyberstalking going on for years and resulting in a ban, the Claimant ended up doxing the First Defendant's wife using material collected in mostly private channels, contacting her employer. There are suspicion that the Claimant may be secretly funded by a company of interest for a "funny" (the Claimant's own word) harassment by process. Veiled threats always escalated when the First Defendant produced many videos and articles (thousands per year), after he had resigned from his job to do this full time. The idea of "cheap revenge" for "a nominal fee" needs to be taken into account by the Court.
The Claimant knows that the Defendants has no source of income - and may have in fact contributed to that situation - and now, being tighter with money, they would hesitate to hire an expensive lawyers (living on small budget, so self-researching legal procedures).
This kind of abuse is not unprecedented. In order to distort the record the Claimant resorts to out-of-context quotations, deliberate misinterpretations (the response to the Particulars of Claim includes several instance of that). To go as far as to rewrite official statements, so as to incite people against the messenger, is a modus operandi too.
The Claimant has mastered a 'symphony of narrative invention', portraying himself as a tragic victim after he had aggressively defamed and publicly attacked the people whom he claims to be the victim of. As if they're not entitled to be able to merely defend themselves using words.
This Legal Case as a Distraction
All this amounts to an effective distraction from the great harm he has caused to computer users all around the world, gaining his notoriety (or fame among monopolists).
The First Defendant did not personify the issue; he persistently focused on the subject matter, pinpointing the technical issue, then the company pushing that agenda. The Claimant keep leaving many comments in the First Defendant's blog and arguing with him, in turn making it more personal (not company names and technical details or relevant antitrust provisions).
The First Defendant repeatedly cautioned the Claimant (before pre-action letters and before the lawsuit) that harassment and/or intimidation of relatives is not acceptable and is generally hurtful. The Claimant's spouse has a history of being sued for defamation (for eerily similar online conduct), unlike the the First Defendant, who was never sued before.
Harm to the Defendants
As noted above, there is evidence of further abuse, pending more substantial proof of attribution. The First Defendant and the the Second Defendant still have strong suspicion - and some evidence that may support this - that the Claimant spent years stalking channels of communications looking for "dirt" and then use that to contact their employer too, with the sole intent to cause them trouble at work. The Defendants can produce evidence of very immature behaviour (by the Claimant), stretching to immoral actions like hijacking other people's names because it is "funny", undermining civil and orderly public discourse.
Unlike the Claimant, or conversely, the First Defendant fought back against Microsoft's boot-locking. He has done this for 12 years already.
There is much to be said about the conduct of the Claimant's legal representatives as well, dating back to 2021 when the frivolous pre-action letters started coming, landing at the doorstep with unreasonable demands.
It seems like twice already the Claimant and his law firms decided to look for ways to prevent security of costs and they don't talk at all about the client (the Claimant) sending the Defendant pre-action letters since 2021.
Not Defamatory
Worse yet, each time the lawsuit is mentioned in public they resort to sending threatening letters, making false assertions. They say that talking about the lawsuits is defamation. There is nothing whatsoever defamatory therein. They are trying to prevent the Defendants from even talking about the case, as the facts are not on their side and they were all along aiming to censor.
When the First Defendant started writing about it the Claimant sought to silence and even censor those writings (blog posts). All the latest posts were very much factual and easy to prove, so if they add more claims to an already-long list of claims, those new ones will be very easy to invalidate with substantial proof, i.e. those will only 'dilute' what they have already).
When they started this "funny" (the Claimant's word) action, it seemed evident that it was not about justice. The Defendants maintain that all the Claimant was truly after and all along wanted was censorship and an "apology" from the real victims.
In the PDFs sent to the Defendant's lawyer at the end of May they mention information that's not even new, e.g. a tweet written by the Claimant himself about legalising most drugs. It's not new and it's not false. The legal representatives of the Claimant thus scrape the bottom of the barrel again, conflating embarrassment or "serious harm" with an injustice. Some people's own behaviour causes "serious harm". Sad, but true, and suffice to say, libel law does not cover hurt feelings when the underlying statements (to which claims refer) are truthful. Libel law protects from false statements, not from hurt feelings.
The Claimant and his legal representatives are perhaps particularly upset that he did not tell him about his misuse or frivolous use of pre-action letters for years and that he kept defaming dozens of people for over 15 years (the Defendants have proof of that; people wrote to them) while he sued a couple for "defamation", trying to invert the narrative. When a white heterosexual male attacks many Jews (high-profile people) and Asian people observers have to also wonder where he stands on gender and racial equality.
The Defendant were sent work-related mail from the Claimant before he resorted making threats - around October of last year - so they know his salary; he admitted it on the record, and moreover legal professionals have a legitimate reason to think the law firm already realises that he's insufficiently funded and too great a liability because he defamed many people and made many enemies for 15+ years, not to mention dishonesty about possible misuse of pre-action letters for censorship (empty threats).
Intolerance and Hate
There are also instances of intolerance. Writing about gay people in our community (writers) and women including the First Defendant's mother and my wife being subjected to overt racism and highly sexual attacks oughtn't be verboten or censored; the world needs to know. The Claimant keeps trying to prevent such information from coming out as it undermines his image (harassment, cyberstalking, and misogyny are frowned upon in his social circles). Paying a minimal court fee to register a new case does not instantaneously grant any random person editorial control over the accused (but presumed innocent) site, except maybe somewhere like Belarus. The Defendants thus strongly objects to efforts to silence them, whether by formal letters from lawyers or correspondence in the form of Particulars of Claim.
The Defendants opine that the Claimant has no sincere desire to pursue this case. They see the behaviour and judge the behaviour like that of a cornered animal, trying to come up with something menacing after exactly two weeks since the Defendants began mentioned their stance on why they will stubbornly defend what was publish and it started and who the real victim actually is.
The Defendants believe that the Claimant is, in effect, weaponising lawyers and misusing pre-action letters without properly informing them of the full context.
The Defendants have reasons to suspect that the Claimant probably saw and also completely read their articles every day, but triggered no action until they wrote a face-saving letter about doxing the wife's (Second Defendant) maiden name, then another swift (but more detailed, greater in quantity but not quality) letter trying to act like it was the Defendant who did something wrong.
It was a similar situation 2 years ago when a company tried to accuse the Defendants of something and then both Defendants showed (in public) that this company had victimised a lot of its own staff, even lied to clients, and then managed to expose pension fraud inside the company, impacting many present and past staff. This sent the company into hiding, in effect fearing arrests (of managers). Some resigned out of fear. This whole affair started with invention of victim-aggressor narrative, or in other words, the company that did many illegal things tried to single out the honest whistleblowers as the ones doing something illegal.
The First Defendant is deeply and truly familiar with scenarios like this as he and associates have spent about 20 years writing a lot about them, totalling almost 45,000 articles in Techrights alone. It would be deeply tragic is legal processes got misused to hide abuse rather than tackle abuse. █