SLAPP Censorship - Part 22 Out of 200: When You Complain People Impersonate You in IRC (But You Yourself Impersonate People in IRC and Lock Them Out of Their IRC Handles)
Last year: Stones Thrown in Glass Houses
![[MICHAEL JACKSON DISAPPOINTED TWO PANEL] No, that's just someone pretending to be me; And sometimes I myself am pretending to be other people](/i/2026/03/pretend-michael.png)
This morning we mentioned behaviour online (netiquette) and explained why we're permitted to talk about the case within certain boundaries whilst illuminating the full chronology going back to 2012 (this goes a very long way back, but for Rianne it began in 2022, who was on the receiving end of the wrath of several misogynists who twist the law and sometimes break it by lying). We cannot insinuate certain things about the sockpuppet accounts that abused us because it remains unclear who operated those accounts via the Tor network.
We've not (since 2023) insinuated those sockpuppet accounts were operated by Garrett (not a security expert) because this was the subject of a legal dispute. We did, however, mention many easily provable and fully verified incidents (not the subject of the court case) where Garrett breached netiquette standards/rules. I cross-examined or grilled him about some of these netiquette breaches last October.
One core point he loathes (when we bring it up, he confessed this when I cross-examined him):
- In a nutshell, the Claimant (Garrett) has a proven history of using pseudonyms, known aliases and even hijacking other people's names, so history is one thing (the Claimant nowadays falsely claims otherwise, though such a claim is falsifiable and easily, trivially falsified). We'll cover this with direct evidence some time soon; he basically defamed people by pretending to be them (then people complained to us that we allowed Garrett to impersonate, defame and lock them out of their handles; "allowed" only by inaction or a lack of intervention, which required technical skills; we cannot babysit IRC 24/7 because we need to sleep). He admitted this to me in Court and tried to make excuses for it. Garrett isn't innocent and it's not a "joke" when you threaten violent actions against people or impersonate them in order to defame them. Ironically, he kept calling people "rapist" in IRC; then his own spouse repeatedly called him a rapist in public (as recently as 11 days ago). Suddenly he doesn't like it when people call other people rapist?
- Unlike the sockpuppet accounts, the above came from authenticated handles or a witness who swore on the Bible. Garrett does not deny the hijacking of another person's name (it's clear that this was him), but he insists someone was impersonating him later (sheer hypocrisy as this is what he had done to others). Garrett, the Court has ruled, did not control sockpuppet accounts, but it did not say that he never acted badly (as per netiquette or manners' expectations; surely he violated every CoC) in our IRC networks.
- Because of the Judgement we must accept those sockpuppet accounts were all impersonators, merely pretending to be Garrett. That does not change the fact that he himself was an impersonator. Under sworn oath he didn't deny that he impersonated another person in our IRC network.
- We have to respect that decision, but again that does not alter the fact that at some point Garrett impersonated people in IRC. He seems to have a problem with those sorts of things only when it negatively impacts his image; when he does so himself it's just "kidding" or a "joke".
In a nutshell, claiming that someone is impersonating you in IRC while you yourself impersonate other people in IRC (to defame them) isn't a very clever plan. We cannot spend a million bucks on lawyers and barristers (funded by third parties with shared interests against us), but we can point out - as affirmed by the cross-examination (October 30th, 2025) - that Garrett did in fact impersonate people in IRC. We'll show and explain this in depth soon. █
Image source: 1950 out of an old coffee grinder kitchen