SLAPP Censorship - Part 34 Out of 200: The Necessity of Transparency, Illuminating Garrett's and Graveley's 'Tag-Team' Act, Misusing the British Docket (From Far Away in America) in Efforts to Hide Bad Behaviour
Transparency is paramount. Without it, there can be no truth and/or justice. Transparency facilitates informed scrutiny. Transparency is about making evidence easily available and accessible to all (for examination by oneself and all others). The opposite of it is secrecy. It enables deceit, coercion, and fear-mongering.
Today we proceed to the next phase in this long-running series which illuminates not only Claim No. KB-2024-001270 but also its evil twin, which the court deems connected to it (based on its recent actions, updating both in parallel after the judge's decision almost half a year ago).
In 2021 we wrote exclusively about Microsoft corruption inside GitHub, likely resulting in the dismissal of its CEO, a GNOME associate of Garrett and allegedly the "best friend" of the other - or another - associate who spoke to Garrett before helping him by filing another lawsuit in the same year. What they did was so utterly evil that our barrister said this was the most horrible thing he ever saw (and he did hundreds of cases). I put a counterclaim almost 200 pages in length, simply because I had to (by virtue of him paying someone in another continent he can force me to do this).
At the High Court, Garrett swore on the Bible and then admitted he had spoken to the above man before the second lawsuit; this right there proved that Garrett, his barrister and his lawyers had repeatedly lied to several judges. This is a very serious matter and far from the only such matter [1, 2, 3]. Worse yet, they defamed me for stating the obvious. They call themselves defamation specialists, yet they defamed me a lot. They pretend to be experts in data protection, yet they violated my privacy and even my relatives got doxed. This merits public awareness and well-overdue scrutiny. They allegedly did this to people before me - people who had exposed crime (when rich criminals pay lawyers to conduct lawfare and there's no real regulation of this occupation we live in the de facto "underworld").
Only days after Garrett suffered a massive disappointment in Court and told he'd likely need to spend another half a million pounds until the trial (not counting afterwards, based on their own costs estimate) the man who years earlier begged me (out of time for any claim) sent me a "generous" threat through hired guns in another continent. When turned down he recycled the same barrister as Garrett's to toss eerily similar Particulars of Claim (PoC), which merits commentary. If not for public awareness, this collective of misogynists would carry on hurting more people and reporters who sidle with these women. In the process, they try to cover up Microsoft crimes in America. Remember it's funded by Microsoft and other third parties. They instrumentalise "disposables" who are big-headed charlatans they can later throw under the bus.
In the previous part an earlier reaction to that was reproduced. It was written in 2024 and it has aged well. Not only were we right; it turns out the other side deliberately lied about it. Microsoft sure is a magnet for dishonest people and misogynists. Why should British taxpayers entertain these people?
Some of our ministers are aware of such issues (we had escalated the matter, which impacts national security). On Tuesday (April 14) our government will discuss the SRA's failure to regulate people who profit from such bullying. Volleying 75+ KG of legal papers at us is not "winning", it's just drowning out anything we have to say (wheelbarrows of their papers versus our modest little bundle of honest information and supporting material/proof) while rich Americans and shady third parties fund the printers (in some cases literally thousands of pages of binary slop). Judges do not have enough time allocated to go through this much material; that's being exploited and gaming of the system is something we'll illustrate later in this long series (e.g. using boilerplate text to copy-paste lots of stuff and add so-called 'volume' in a misleading, inappropriate fashion).
Ironically, those hired guns who front for a man who was in prison try to put my family in prison for the 'crime' of reporting what happened [1, 2]. █
