Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 14 Out of 200: The Abusive Cases of the Serial Strangler From Microsoft and His Litigation Buddy Garrett Did Cause "Serious Harm"
Christmas Day: We Gave All Our Money to Protect Free Software
Published by Microsoft's Serial Strangler (MJG admitted under sworn oath they had communicated/coordinated their joint litigation campaign or 'tag-teaming' after their lawyers and barrister - exactly the same people - had repeatedly lied about this to several High Court judges):
Yesterday in Part 13 we revisited misuse of "UKGDPR" for censorship attempts where it was very clear no privacy violations had in fact occurred (it should be noted that, in fact, the claims were de facto abandoned at the trial as they were futile, pointless, toothless). Worse yet, those who misused "UKGDPR" had themselves violated the privacy of me, my wife, and even relatives. Talk about hypocrisy! Anonymous threats and doxing don't come from me, they come from them (maybe even swatting).
We are hardly shocked to see some fools cheering for lawfare or lawyering up to the tune of $1,000,000 just to try to censor a critical voice (some of them are connected to Novell/Microsoft and aren't the CEO, who also had a go at it).
Are several dozens of my very old articles "worth" a million bucks? What we witness here is cult mentality and rejection of real security (hence real privacy), free speech etc. Shoehorning "UKGDPR" on no real basis/ground is a hallmark of abuse of process - something this firm was deemed guilty of at the High Court less than 12 months ago. This is a matter of public record anybody can verify.
Today and tomorrow I'd like to revisit some of the things which this abusive firm did to us and tried to compel us to do (under duress, threats, and smugness/arrogance that comes with "but you're not a lawyer!").
We previously did a mini series about "Serious Harm" in relation to us, to most computer users, and to the spouse of the Claimant, culminating in this overview in January.
This is what we wrote about 24 months ago in our notes about this case, which in no way contravene/overstep injunctions or anything like that (the firm and its client intentionally lie about that):
23. Not a word is said about the damages caused to the Defendants, as well as other people who have long been subjected to slanderous accusations from the Claimant. Victimhood is not a monopoly and determining who the real victim is should not be on a “first-to-file” (in court) basis.
23.1 The Defendants strongly object to this misleading narrative; the publications was a last recourse after enduring endless abuse, both day and night, mostly in IRC (not limited to it). Both Defendants suffered distressed due to that. The Defendants did not issue threat or posted pre-action letters. The Defendants in fact kept receiving letters (by post) and E-mails from the Claimant, who kept making demands if not threats. Eventually, in August, articles explaining what had happened since October 2022 were carefully published along with supporting evidence. The text was meticulously researched and checked carefully prior to publication, which wasn’t even so frequent (about once a week). It was not an impulsive endeavour and it was very time-consuming. It served to caution other people who had been similarly victimised and didn’t know who to reach out to. It’s important to put to rest the abuse; if nobody speaks out against the abuse, either due to fear or a lack of resources, the abuse can carry on and proceed to targeting more people, potentially making their lives a lot worse.
23.2 Publications that are “damaging” the people are not the same as false publications. As noted in the initial Defence, the Claimant has not provided any substantial, verifiable proof disputing what was published. The Defendants are more than happy and pleased at prospects of receiving substantially meaningful evidence disproving the articles. None has been received since last year. The Defendants only received threatening letters, twisting what was previously an appeal to censor as a privacy violation that merits further escalation. The webhosts of Techrights and of Tux Machines informed them that the Claimant not only contacted them asking for a takedown (or deplatforming); he moreover created a whole new E-mail account with the name of the webhosts in it, as it to insinuate he would not relent and keep contacting the host unless action was taken by the webhosts (even if the liability is entirely misplaced; the webhosts aren’t liable and they’re not a media-centric courtroom, either). On the very same day another person, whom the Claimant speaks to online (in public) about taking the sites down (offline) or stealing the domain name (censorship at DNS level) sent threats to the webhosts, essentially threatening to sue them (or darking their name by merely pretending to). This person, who the Claimant coordinates with, would later file a legally-invalid “case” in Ontario (Canada) while acknowledging there was no actual jurisdiction and the real intent was just to annoy the webhosts. This too is part of long-running, never-ending campaign of harassment, not only against the Defendant (author and curator, husband and wife) but also guest writers, webhosts etc. This is very trivial to link to the Claimant. What sane person creates a whole new E-mail account just to complaint to a webhost, naming that E-mail account like an imposter of the webhost? All in all, it merits further discussion as it shows that the extent of the harassment by the Claimant goes far beyond IRC. A very determined harasser, who does the harassment “24/7”, would not hesitate to pay a lawyer some money to participate it or assist with the harassment. A properly-functioning society would have obstacles in place to discourage or prevent narcissists from doing this, as it become a collective yoke for one person’s frail ego.
23.3 It was not published “to” people, it was published in a site. There are no mailing lists (E-mail) and the site does not push anything to anyone. People come to the site if they wish (it is “pull”, not “push”), so no effort was made to target any particular people with this material. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here regarding the way the World Wide Web works. It is not like a dissemination of a physical letter or magazine. The way things work, people have a platform, such as a Web site or a Web account somewhere; then, they publish material there. In social media sites, the concept of subscriber or follower or friend exists and the platform may transmit copies of what’s published to each of them (or some of them, depending on scope). But Tux Machines and Techrights are not using social media. Any person seeing publications in Tux Machines and Techrights is a person who connects to the site, someone who has interest in the latest publications therein. The distinction ought not be overlooked. At no point did the authors of Tux Machines and Techrights mass-mailed people with links to their article. It was entirely voluntary for people to read the publication (active, not passive).
23.4 That sentence reads like it was written by the First Defendant, not the claimant, as it accurately describes what Dr. Schestowitz was subjected to by the Claimant for well over a decade – all this because Dr. Schestowitz objected to monopoly and to rather clear antitrust violations. This again illuminates the recurring element of projection. In reality, the First Defendant had good reasons to file a lawsuit, but the First Defendant was too busy with productive activities, but at the same time the First Defendant was also stalked and harassed – for a period of several years in fact.
23.5 That failed to note that the Claimant had already sent pre-action letter before, even as far back as 2021, and did not take further action despite a complete lack of response (“engagement”). This context must be taken into careful consideration when assessing the merits of the Particulars of Claim. Just because the claimant keeps swapping legal representatives (and law firms) does not mean he gets to game the system again and again, at first sending a totally ridiculous claim over a “tweet” that does not even name him, as if to “test the waters” with cheap and very short pre-action letters (that lack real ‘meat’). Some of the pre-action letters are full with a lot of self-promotional language, one might assume drafted by the Claimant himself to be signed by a solicitors at low cost. By his own (in retrospect, tactless) admission, he wanted to do something “funny” and do so for “a nominal fee”. There was no obligation, either moral of legal, to engage with a person who is a serial harasser and defamer. The general approach chosen was to not waste time engaging or falling into the trap or uttering something that would later be taken out of context. The old saying goes, “do not feed the trolls.”
23.6 The Defendants both insist that they should be the ones to receive a public apology. Further publications were not defamatory, they were maybe hurtful to the Claimant’s feelings (or sense of status, entitlement), but those were still based on facts. It’s rather revealing that someone cannot distinguish/differentiate what is false from what is hurtful. There’s precedence associated with such scenarios, where a person conflates having suffered emotional damage with having been unfairly treated. Sometimes people who are fairly treated are still not happy with the treatment that they receive. That does not entitle them to compensation or an apology.
23.7 The terms “distress and embarrassment” are repeated here (not the first time), but again, as before, an “embarrassment” does not imply something wrong or foul has been said or done. The word “malicious” is meant to indicate there was ill intent rather than rejection of low-quality ‘proof’ that one is not associated with particular account. The Claimant remained connected to the Techrights IRC network “24/7” for several years; just because some old work contract indicated work duties on a particular date of the week does not imply that the Claimant was 1) actually there 2) did not have access to a computer (at work or commute) 3) had no access to a Wi-Fi hotspot or 4/5G connection 4) did not instruct a spouse or time a particular action in IRC (via an account that was connected to it 24/7). Put another way, the attribution of an action to bad intent is a matter of opinion. The Defendant endured a lot of abuse and did not seek to do anything “malicious”; they felt the need to inform more more people of what they had been subjected to.
2026 commentary: To clarify that last paragraph, the Judge deemed it unproven that the IRC abuse by sockpuppet accounts can be attributed to Garrett and we need to respect that decision, however there are disclosures in the case - provided by Garrett himself - showing Garrett interacting privately with people who did in fact create chaos in IRC (and admitted so in public, even boasted about it).
At a later point we'll also show that he hijacked identities of other people in IRC - a verified fact that he has already admitted in Court under sworn oath. It would be unreasonable to suggest he never acted badly in IRC networks, the case dealt only with sockpuppet accounts seen in 2023 (that is what the injunctions actually cover). █