SLAPP Censorship - Part 47 Out of 200: British Courts Are Not Censorship Offices for Americans Funded by Affluent Third Parties
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was scrutinised by our government earlier today. It happened around the time we published Part 46 - including evidence of mischief in the United States. The text is below comes from the counterclaim issued to the Serial Strangler from Microsoft. He thinks that British courts exist to help him censor critics by issuing threats in 2024, then in 2025, then again in 2026.
Appendix VI: Reputational Harm to the British Legal System (It's Not a Censorship Office)
-
A.The docket exists for justice, not for deterrence by which to induce censorship, self-censorship, set aside out-of-court settlements. In this case, like in the “twin” case, the courts were repeatedly abused for many months. For a number of years Mr. Graveley and Mr. Garrett used the threats of lawsuits as a lever by which to discourage publication and/or demand censorship of existing material. This is a matter of public record.
-
B.The telling of truth, or even journalism, must never be limited by the issuance of threats – more so threats that are not acted upon and not publicly reported. There must not be a “black market” of threats and publishers should publish information as they see fit, not based on their fear of wealth/power/connections of someone they criticise/d. In the case of the Gates Foundation, a book was recently published to explain the “Bill Chill” – basically an effect which cools criticism and prevents publishers from reporting critical facts. Aside from threats of litigation, there are threats of revoking sponsorship for particular publications shall they publish something unfavourable. This is a covert form of censorship that a free, democratic society cannot and must not tolerate. The public must be properly informed in order to make sensible choice, e.g. in the ballot box, when choosing what products/brands to buy and so on.
-
C.It is abundantly clear that in the past Mr. Garrett offered a phony 'peace' in exchange of mass censorship (deletion of articles) that he didn't like. This material is already included in the Disclosure of the Garrett Case. This constitutes a critical pattern of behaviour on the claimants’ behalf.
-
D.Such so-called 'peace' would not be long-lasting as it creates appetite for more and more censorship, set aside self-censorship. It’s about exercise of power over someone who knows particular technical topics well enough to repeatedly report about them.
-
E. It's hardly surprising that Mr. Graveley attempted the same modus operandi later; he just gave a long list of articles that he didn't like and labelled them with "GDPR" (or UKGDPR) brush, not even once bothering to mention which parts he deemed a violation of data protection principles (none were) or why. He just drew a long list of articles that he wanted deleted. Need it be pointed out that both Mr. Graveley and Garrett are US citizens, who thus do not have GDPR-type laws? In other words, they latch only laws that do not apply to them. This is asymmetric lawfare (warfare by lawyering up).
-
F.Clogging up the court system with Microsoft-connected SLAPPs is a major slap on the reputation of the legal system, hence the issue must be tackled at the core by the Court. GDPR matters are dealt with by lower courts and there is no data protection issue worth entertaining in this case anyway. Had Techrights not attached evidence (publicly available) like the arrest report, then a frivolous libel action can assert it's not supported by evidence. Since the evidence was in fact published, it is then framed as a "privacy" issue. So which is it? How is one meant to expose bad behaviour including corruption? Has journalism about powerful companies like Microsoft becomes impermissible in the UK? To put it another way, if presenting hard evidence is a privacy violation, whereas having no evidence is “unsupported libel”, then no matter what a reporter does, it’s deemed illegal to expose wrongdoing, corruption, crime etc.
-
G.That begs the question about the lawyers and barristers here. If you know this stuff lacks any merit, why do you keep trying to extort people with settlement fees and why would you advance a meritless case? Because it's money, that's why, but at whose expense? This is destroying the perception of justice and clogs up the system, effectively preventing truly and genuinely important cases that have merit from progressing fast enough. They say that justice delayed is justice denied. These Americans’ actions serve to deny justice for British people, whose cases get queued up, delayed to make ways for ridiculous SLAPPs, funded by the wealthy from another continent.
-
H.This case should never have been filed at all. It should not have been reached to the point of being dropped, even conditionally, no case should have been registered and no fees paid. But if a rogue law firm gives bad advice for selfish purposes, then it can create a great deal of mess and expense (from which it stands to profit), but what about its own reputation?
-
I.Bringing forth a case to compel me to face an aggressive, dangerous, violent lunatic here in the UK (he’s not from the UK) is irresponsible. It should never have happened if the law firm did its homework and acted responsibly. In the Garrett case, that same firm chose to act for an American who publicly fetishises blades (knives, axes end son) in relation to what he wishes to do to colleagues. The law firm advancing the SLAPPs is co-owned by a person who goes by the title “Head of Crime”, so maybe they’re accustomed to this kind of thing, but bringing together bloggers and some Americans who glorify violence in a media court like King’s Bench (for media’s special-purpose tribunal or media lists) is not acceptable, more so for vulnerable reporters, including women (like Rianne Schestowitz). It endangers journalists and puts at peril their safety (or perceived safety, which is also important for freedom of the press, free expression without daunting physical violence) in the United Kingdom.
-
J.In cases such as this, it would not be irrational to demand extra security inside the courtroom and around it, knowing that it invites people who are violent and who come from a nation where firearms – or the right to bear arms as per the Constitutions and its Second Amendment - are celebrated.
-
K.If Mr. Graveley has concerns for the reputation of his attorney in the US, on whom evidence was provided, then this attorney should pursue action, not Mr. Graveley on his behalf. This claim is ludicrous on many levels and its very existence in the docket discredits the Court. It emboldens critics who say not only that the US dominates the British political system (the so-called “special relationship”) but who also say that those with deeper pockets stand to “win”, just because of the money they have, not because of or owing to arguments presented.
-
L.It is rather revealing that this lawsuit was filed by Mr. Graveley also against his victims and on behalf of friends and associates, including his questionable attorney and even Mr. Garrett. This is not how laws should work; for instance, you do not direct claims against people who merely get exposed to information rather than those who report it.
-
M.Unlike Mr. Garrett, I do not share the view that courts are to be gamed and generally used to do “funny” things (his words) and it seems like Mr. Graveley uses British courts, despite not being British, to silence critics or seek “revenge” against them. Both are abominable attitudes. This really should not be entertained here, not at the level of administrative process or further up the chain.
-
N.There are parallel efforts to squash such problems, including in the case of Zahawi, who was represented by a lawyer that broke rules. He picked on a critic, who spoke about tax-related abuses. Brett Wilson LLP was mentioned when it first picked on the same critic. Quoting the Financial Times: "The Solicitors Regulation Authority this week decided to refer Zahawi’s lawyer to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for allegedly telling tax expert Dan Neidle that Neidle could not reveal that he had received a demand to retract an allegation he had published about the MP, according to two people briefed on the move. The partner at law firm Osborne Clarke wrote to Neidle in 2022 telling Neidle that the demand he had received from the lawyer — on behalf of Zahawi — was “without prejudice” and confidential, and warned him against publishing or even referring to it, saying it would be a “serious matter”. The SRA considered the lawyer’s conduct could amount to a Slapp — an approach employed by lawyers to try to intimidate and shut down reporting. The practice has come under greater scrutiny in recent years over concerns that particularly Russian oligarchs and other powerful individuals weaponised litigation to shield themselves from scrutiny. The SRA has investigated several instances of alleged Slapps, but the case involving Zahawi’s lawyer is the first time the regulator has referred the alleged use of such conduct to the SDT." It seems relevant to this case and to the Garrett Case.
-
O.Short of an explanation of how or why the “twin” case and this one were advanced, one is left to assume abuse of process and duality by docket-stuffing.
The series shall continue. It is a matter of public interest and national security. █