SLAPP Censorship - Part 18 Out of 200: Third Parties Funding Attacks on the Messengers, Lawsuits Against GAFAM-Critical Voices That Uphold Real National Security
Women are like kryptonite to them
Two weeks ago: An American War on GNU/Linux, Software Freedom, and British Investigative, Science-Based Reporting - Part I - A Matter of National Security | An American War on GNU/Linux, Software Freedom, and British Investigative, Science-Based Reporting - Part V - Attempts to Take Down and Suppress Criticism of Back Doors Controlled by Microsoft and the American Government
Garrett opposes real security and has only imaginary credentials (such as a vanity page/advertisement in Wikipedia).
What his spouse wrote earlier this year:
On several occasions, in 2023 and then again in recent months, the first SLAPPer (not the one who strangled women, the one whose spouse keeps calling a "rapist") said in public things to the effect of, his real aim is to take this entire site offline. Nowadays he's still openly boasting that several times already (at least thrice before July 2025, probably many times since then) third parties funded him to do this. We can assume some of them are GAFAM (i.e. billionaires' interests, companies we routinely criticise) sidling with hyper-sensitive incels and cowards. Remember they're all Americans! They are always Americans who engage in "forum shopping" (choosing infamously claimant-friendly courts in another continent with notorious costs). Our politicians here don't like this (it is steadily advancing this month [1, 2], it's a bipartisan interest). Our barrister reviled this. Spending a million dollars in 'lawyer hours' and taking several barristers (B.H. and K.W.) to attack my wife and I with 75+ KG of legal papers seems overzealous, but so is their intent in general. Remember that the serial strangler sued his victim and his litigation buddy admitted they had coordinated the litigation against me (which was also an admission they had lied about it to several British judges while defaming me with name-calling).
And yet, here we are years after it all began and they keep issuing threats to us, even in public, despite us doing everything correctly. The late Ross Anderson [1, 2, 3], a friend of Andy Farnell et al was also targeted for insisting on real computer security. Anderson was properly qualified, he was British, and did not work for GAFAM.
Now back to Garrett (GAFAM).
This isn't about justice, it's about censorship. They try to cover up for themselves, their friends, and their sponsors (who put money in the "pot" to sue us, like Palantir's Thiel did with Hulk Hogan). Despite being sent threats from burner accounts (trying to spook us into deleting all criticism of Brett Wilson LLP) we'll carry on reporting the facts, as we're legally permitted and even encouraged because the only way to uphold the law is to expose companies that break the law.
Today we revisit a document composed 2 years ago. A part of it questions why, after several years of empty threats and legally-invalid threats from some boutique hired gun the first SLAPPer switched over to another hired gun and fired some shots, this time not only at me but also at my wife (whilst intentionally using the wrong name - an act we still deem both racist and sexist - it's a machos' firm that repels feminist authority [1, 2] and instead uses women as props or "optics").
Why It Has Taken Him So Long to Take Action
One cannot help but wonder, why did the man wait over 8 months since the articles (the Publications scrutinised) until a case was filed?
Why did it take that long?
It took him a year to take action (since or during which time the abuse from him had intensified in IRC), he took another lawyer, probably because every lawyer told him that this case would fail, he had "no case", so he just turned down these honest analyses and looked for another lawyer who just gave another answer - one that he wanted to hear. While this is partly too speculative , based on activity of his in social media (captured at the time), there was a lot of shopping around spanning several months. Almost a year later he found a notorious law firm that is, according to lawyers the Defendants spoke to (in the wake and also during the course of this case), willing to take any case, irrespective of the chance of winning, as long as one pays for it, resulting in very notoriously low winning rates. No wonder they keep trying to settle, instead. It keeps happening every month or so. They already gave up on reputation, basically, in pursuit of people willing to pay for hopeless cases about some IRC logs or whatnot, falsely portraying their victims of abuse as the perpetrators of abuse. Inversions are not hard given mischievous PR tactics and disingenuous people “playing the victim card”.
The reversal of narratives herein should be a great source of shame. There’s no pride in attacking a woman who runs a site pro bono, and more so attacking her for responding to an attack – a response that took her weeks to prepare and from which she stood to gain nothing financially.
Why He is So Desperate to Settle (Attempted It Thrice Already)
[2026 update: They've already attempted to settle at least 5 times! The aim of such settlements would be censorship.]
In short, even he recognises that it's a dumb case. It can only cost everyone a lot of time and money.
Mr. know-it-all is notorious for never admitting mistakes and pretending to know everything - even to the point of faking or grossly exaggerating his credentials. He is so stubborn and sure of himself that he'll never admit (even to himself) that this was a deeply misguided decision, trying to gag the victim of abuse rather than support her like a decent human being would.
This is ‘the master’ bluffer or the chronic faker who also pretended that he had a home when all he had was a mortgage (i.e. loan) and he got caught in many other lies in IRC, only to either vanish or to vilely attack the person exposing the lie. The characteristic flaw or the aspect wherein one such as he resorts to attacking whomever tells him that which he does not wish to hear constitutes problems in a cooperative workplace – perhaps helping to explain the never-ending job hopping by the Claimant. There seems to be a serious problem of character and the Claimant himself admitted that colleagues did not trust him.
Ironically for him, having started this case, he puts himself in focus; in a sense, this is his character and his distasteful online conduct "on trial", including how he treated colleagues (e.g. Ted Ts'o) – and this is hardly a secret. His own actions made him unemployable or barely employable. It’s not the fault of Techrights or Tux Machines; they’re hardly the only sites to report his bad behaviour, which is easy for everyone to see regardless.
It beggars belief; who instructed him to initiate a case that would ultimately put his poor character in focus? Does he want this in the public domain? Did he envision this as a way to improve his score or is it just some impulsive way to ‘settle scores’?
So we deal with very weird man who has no sense of humour and wrongly assumes that adding multiple obscenities (even the words that one should not put in legal documents, e.g. words like "shit" or "fuck") to a sentence (it should be noted he does this almost every week and makes excuses for such tasteless language, not convincingly) will somehow, magically, make it funny.
He does that with great frequency. It’s not an accident or something he does when he isn’t sober (he boasts about drinking alcohol, even in public).
It does not make anything funny. It just makes him look rude, unprofessional, and grumpy. A lot of his public posts contain obscenities, yet he insists that he has good reputation he wishes to guard. Any sane person can see that he’s the culprit of his reputation issues; heck, in his site he “joked” that he would write computer programs in exchange for sexual favours and he says openly that he wants to stab colleagues. It did not take Techrights or Tux Machines to ruin his so-called ‘reputation’ – a lot of this tasteless behaviour predates the time when Techrights or Tux Machines even mentioning (or first mentioned) his name. He’s not an important person, so he was very seldom named.
In short, what we have here is someone filing a lawsuit in a country far away and then repeatedly trying to sneak out of it with some settlement, unlike the respondents, who believe that the legal process exists not for manipulative purposes and “games”. While the respondents adopted not the "bring it on!" stance, they want the case to be properly dealt with because they know it's a foolish lawsuit without any "smoking guns" or "star witness" or "October surprises" (if there were, he'd not try to run away like that). There is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson is not that courts can be and should be used for extortionate purposes – that would be a misuse of public resources at great collective expense.
It’s time for the Claimant to face the music. He started the case, but he wants to leave the show. What does that look like to an outsider? Of course he can just drop the case which he started. Although that would not undo the enormous harm he has caused, but it would nonetheless be the sensible thing to do.
His poor character aside, there are also legal issues. The Claimant routinely boasts that he didn't or does not get arrested in airports, perhaps because he feels some guilt. Yet he keeps breaking into devices without their owners' permission and trying to crash Techrights' programs in IRC, then boasting about it. It ranges from immature behaviour, like hijacking other people's nicknames to much worse stuff. This is included in the bundle of evidence. This isn't the behaviour of a sane, healthy person. He talks about legalising most drugs (in public! Just to be clear, talk about legalising drugs in the US is not itself illegal. However, talk of using drugs is evidence of illegal activity), he publicly states that sees professional help for his mental issues, and he also says in public that he suffered burnout. Taking these problems out on other people is not okay.
Note: As usual, none of the above relates in any way to injunctions. Do not believe anything said in Social Control Media. We've already fully complied with everything and we still do. And "keep in mind there is neither treatment nor cure for malignant narcissism," as an associate said. Personally unfit persons like to project, calling the exposers what they themselves are. It's an extension of DARVO, wherein the serial defamer paints himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator (he has defamed me since 2012 and I'm told by high profile people he did to same to them for a lot longer). $1,000,000 in legal bills and abuse of process can shape outcomes, but they cannot change documented history (meticulously documented online and available as witness statements, albeit in the UK one has to be rich to bring witnesses to the High Court). █