SLAPP Censorship - Part 44 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley 'Copypasta' Sunday (Copy-Paste, Add One Word, Change 'T' to 't')
5RB is "making a killing" for men who assault women in another continent, and it seemingly does so cheaply/shoddily by recycling text (an utter disregard for the recipients, who may need to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to these weak claims, which they can spawn or repeat like mushroom provided they pay modest court fees).
Consider this 'copypasta':
Just yet another example (plenty more to come) of what we covered yesterday. Follow the money (about a million bucks "invested" in attacking my wife and I by brute force and docket-stuffing tactics, sometimes abuses/misuses of processes - a longstanding tradition of gaming the system [1, 2]).
5RB's Gervase de Wilde and hyper-sensitive (about its own reputation) Brett Wilson LLP are currently sued by their own clients [1, 2, 3]; "Last case activity: 07 Apr 2026".
In 2024 - three years after these
obnoxious SLAPPs had begun [1,
2,
3] (same time I exposed apparent corruption at GitHub [1, 2] and its CEO was
booted/kicked out; detailed timeline shall be published soon) a
local lawyer - not a media specialist - told us that the
above text (PoC) must have cost about 15,000 pounds (or 20,000 US
dollars) to prepare (each!). I asked a second local lawyer
who more or less agreed on it and said it was a low blow to attack
a non-profit so viciously from another continent (a
coward living in some forest). Considering how much
"copy-paste" (or "copypasta", to use the slang) went on, are those
people being
paid thousands of dollars per hour to sling away at a
keyboard with shortcuts/accelerators such as CTRL+C
and CTRL+V (copy, paste). And if so, how is it not
"Public Interest" [1,
2,
3] to make this widely known?
These examples are just a tiny fraction of what we'll show, and
that's just based on one barrister and one set of twin cases
(Garrett already admitted to me after he swore on the Bible that he
had spoken to Graveley about
suing me). In my counterclaim (against
Graveley, the
serial begger, not
his litigation buddy Garrett [1,
2]) this is what I wrote for paragraph 7.2 (as shown
above):
II This is more reuse of the words from Matthew Garrett’s claim (KB-2024-001270, known therein and herein as the Garrett Case). It would, under normal circumstances, seem redundant to respond to a “twin” claim. Nevertheless, in respect to Mr. Graveley, there are more facts worth illuminating. In short, the claim is denied, the grounds for denial being the same as in the identical claim in the Garrett Case. As a general note, the site uses .org and .com domain suffixes (since 2010, albeit by default .org is assumed and defaulted to) and does not discern or distinguish based on geography (or demography). While .org is geographically neutral for any given top-level domain (TLD), it is still controlled by the United States for the most part (at several levels). The site’s sole intent is to relay information to those who are interested and, since the authors do not advertise and have no revenue model whatsoever, dissemination as widely as possible does not correlate with any financial incentive (there are none). Put another way, it would be fallacious and harmful to assume that either the site or its domain have ever strived to publish things for financial gain. This needs to be accounted for as far as legal classifications and/or ramifications are concerned. If legal processes were to be leveraged to attack non-profits, it would mostly be a disservice to the laws crafted and then utilised at great expense (both for claimants and defendants). As stated in the “twin” case, which is attached as it responds to the exact same claim (maybe with very mild alternation/variation of words), this claim or assertion is not admitted. Site analysis data is wiped after short periods of retention. As the Defence in the Garrett Case made very clear, there was no financial incentive/motivation in publishing the material, nor was there any financial gain after publication. Regardless, the material was correct and very much in the interest of the general public, including Microsoft insiders, who prefer to understand if their colleagues pose a risk, either physical or commercial (for instance, causing the company to get sued for the grand sum of $9,000,000,000 in damages, set aside the reputational damage to the company, which was sold in its entirely for a sum less than $9,000,000,000). As per public information, the company loses money on the said endeavour, even sans lawsuits as a contributing factor in the losses (each paying subscriber still costs more to serve that the company spends in costs because it scales poorly, more so computationally; it’s an operational nightmare). Just like in MobileCoin, there is a great deal of reckless deceit, opportunism, and disregard for people’s work. That is an entirely separate issue from abuse against women, which can be seen as a convenient pretext for bringing forth claims against a site that wrote literally hundreds of articles about plagiarism at Microsoft – a topic not many other sites ever explore, nor do many sites truly understand (Techrights has advanced knowledge of patent and copyright laws). Appendix V - and its earlier parts in particular - help illuminate reasons to believe the core or the root issue is fraud/misconduct at Microsoft, not in any way related to the crime which soon followed outside the company’s perimeters. It’s hugely important to get down to the motivations and funding sources for this case and the twin case.
They never responded to this. They ran out of time and asked for more time (despite the Order from the Court being very clear about the deadline). Remember third parties funded this litigation galore (we've received a mountain of 85+ KG of legal papers from them, sometimes in literal wheelbarrows from shady-looking characters). █
"The Panama, Paradise, and Pandora Papers exposed trillions in hidden wealth, tax evasion, and corruption among the world’s most powerful people. Hundreds of investigative journalists across dozens of countries collaborated to break these stories. And yet most Americans cannot name them. That is not coincidence. A media distribution pipeline owned by those who have hoarded extreme wealth through a rigged system have no appetite for stories that expose the system and its beneficiaries. Instead, the pipeline amplifies what serves its owners, directing public anger toward immigrants, crime, government spending, and liberals. The misdirection is not accidental. It is the by-product of a system working exactly as designed. [...] Orbán did not need to imprison journalists or impose overt censorship. His government achieved control through more sophisticated methods, what scholars call autocratic legalism, the strategic use of law to dismantle democratic checks and balances [4]. In March 2025, Orbán referred to journalists, politicians, and judges who oppose him as “insects” that had “survived the winter” [5]."
Under sworn oath, during the trial, Garrett confessed they met or may have brushed shoulders a couple of decades ago. He moreover affirmed the observation his lawyers had lied to High Court judges while tossing insults with nasty connotation my way.
The awful Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) needs to get its act together. In 2 days' time it'll be grilled by our government for its failure to regulate. Forum shopping with London as the venue is a national security threat and nowadays also a threat to digital sovereignty.
"Most recently, on March 26, 2026, the Hungarian government announced formal espionage charges against Szabolcs Panyi, a prominent investigative journalist who had worked with media outlets and international partners to document a damning pattern of Hungary-Russia ties under Orbán, particularly in matters of security, intelligence, and political alignment."
Image source: Patterned pasta representing a couple on a plate of sauce