SLAPP Censorship - Part 48 Out of 200: Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB Copy-Pasting Bogus Claims for Violent Americans (Microsoft) Who Tell Women to Kill Themselves
It's a real text message from Graveley
The story of Microsoft's Graveley & Garrett v Schestowitz & Schestowitz is fascinating for many reasons and our barrister encouraged us to document it for the public to see what had been done to us (this lawfare began in 2021; revisit this detailed timeline).
In a nutshell, the legal team of the Serial Strangler from Microsoft and his litigation buddy Garrett [1, 2] (who already admitted under sworn oath that their cases are connected) is anti-metoo and it has long profited from targeting vulnerable women. We're talking about hired guns (or proxies for Americans) hurling bogus accusations at the British people who did a good job exposing the bad actions of their clients. "Cruelty is the point". Cruelty is also the method. Today my wife Rianne tells me that Microsoft's Graveley telling his partner to kill herself is probably a crime (in Japan, in Europe and in the US for sure, but which is it?). That's aside from the strangulation he got arrested for and also charged for.
"That is a legally actionable situation," I'm told by an American. It's also relevant here in the UK:
From the US: (in British media)
Also covered in American media some years ago
Almost 20 years ago there was a high-profile case wherein an adult woman told a young girl (message/social control media) to kill herself and she did. Facebook liable? The sender liable? The Court found liability was in fact applicable and warranted. The woman was sentenced (years in prison). In some countries suicide cults got targeted, then hopefully marginalised, in this way.
Clearly we have a problem when men tell women to kill themselves and precedents do exist.
Telling someone who has suicide history in her family (yes, her own father; he is fully aware) to kill herself is no joking matter. It's worse than insensitive or sinister. That's what Graveley did (we showed direct evidence before). But this is the sort of clientele deemed worthy by Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB. Just pay Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB and they'll do anything, even copy-paste a friend's set of claims [1, 2] to come up with another lawsuit whose objective is to exhaust funds allocated to the first (i.e. game the system or cheat the system by docket-stuffing). Yesterday I explained this (in person) to the High Court. The funding is known to them, as is the fact that this is about Americans targeting locals.
Graveley and Garrett found each other's "match" (abusers of women, Microsoft connected, GNOME). They also recycle each other's claims:
Notice what they did there.
That he does not know his client's name (or forgot to change the text after copying some other claim for a client called Michael) is something we pointed out before. Does 5RB know that such sloppy work makes its way to the dockets? What will regulators deem this to be?
Regardless, this is from my official response to the Graveley claim (2025):
-
III. Paragraph 7.3 is strictly and wholly not admitted. The Claimant’s first name is also not the same as his birth/given name, which was given to him because his parents were in Hare Krishna, a movement which peaked decades ago and is mostly obscure/unknown to today’s younger generations. On July 31, 1983 (when the Claimant was aged around 5) the New York Times said of Hare Krishna: “Soviet opposition to a new manifestation of religion is hardly surprising, and the attempt to brand the newly imported sect as somehow subversive recalled similar assaults on Christian denominations introduced from the West like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Pentecostals. […] But the attack on the Krishna sect stood out from the usual flow of anti-religious propaganda because the spread of the movement had been virtually unnoticed by Westerners here. One possible explanation for the official concern gleaned from the press reports was that the movement seemed to have taken root among the Soviet equivalent of a middle class -the better educated, urbanized, privileged youths, while earlier Christian sects had traditionally found followers among less-educated rural people. […] The Krishna sect was founded in the United States in 1966 by an Indian ascetic, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, calling on adherents to turn all their worldly possessions over to the society and to accept whatever duties are assigned by their guru.” This Defence will spare any further discussion of this sect, albeit many personal problems can be traced back to upbringing-related perils. Even in this case, the Claimant seems to be losing track of which name to use and sometimes uses both interchangeably. In the Matthew Garrett case, the Barrister wrote his first name as Michael; perhaps he was using a template that he had previously been used for a client called Michael and forgot to edit it properly. I moreover disagree with the meanings that the claim puts forth (as noted earlier) or that the publication is in any way misleading, as insinuated earlier by the assorted claims. Or that I should be scrutinised for something that could perhaps be worded more clearly, avoiding the unnecessary name confusion. The duality of names is not my own fault; it's Graveley's own choosing, perhaps choosing to escape some excruciating past or leave some very bad reputation behind. To put an alternative meanings and to add more clarity: 1. it is admitted that the person is known as Balabhadra and it is denied that I said anything false about Balabhadra. 2. It is not that Balabhadra denied a correlation to that which refers to the name Alex. 3. Not everyone would know that Alex and Balabhadra are the same person. 4. Anyone reading that would, however, not know that the publication refers to Mr Balabhadra Graveley where the full name was used "Alex" (as such). 5. Alternation of words and names, even during the case, would be a disservice to everyone, so it would be best to stick to one name and use it consistently. However, even Mr. Graveley does not consistently use his own name.
-
IV.Paragraph 7.4 is not admitted and it is virtually identical to Paragraph 7.5 in the Matthew Garrett case (see Garrett Case enclosed), colloquially to be known as the “twin” case in future references because it is incredibly similar. Whether or not there are large numbers of people within the jurisdiction and globally who are interested in the topic and similar content covered on the Website, it does not follow that a substantial number of such people would have been directed to the publications complained of. Therefore, to reiterate, this paragraph is not admitted.
Finer points dealt with in turn:
-
-
1.The term “hits” is crucial here; due to Web browser-level caching, one cannot determine how many objects will be retrieved by a user client/agent and for each page fetched from the site there are also cascading style sheets (CSS files), graphics/images (including animations), photographs (typically high quality), small icons (abundant in number), programs (typically JavaScript) etc. So one visit may equal 4 hits, 40 hits, even 400 hits in more extreme cases of the “modern” (i.e. bloated, uncaring for slow-connection users) Web. It depends on how the site is designed and whether objects are sourced from third-party domains, e.g. widely-contentious (in the EU) Google Fonts or various trackers of analytics providers, which manifest themselves as external files or cryptic programs. The Defendant’s sites contain a grand total of zero trackers. That’s done for programmatic (keeping things simple), pragmatic, and purely practical reasons, not just ideological reasons, which were alluded to earlier. The Barrister who prepared the document may or may not be familiar with theses terms; however, the Defendant and the Claimant know what those terms mean.
-
2.The term “visits” is subjective because most traffic on the World Wide Web is bots (computer programs, not living beings, i.e. not real people), many are repeat visits (not unique people arriving), and the definition of visits is further complicated by Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds or Atom feeds, the nature of feed readers, blockers of analytics (trackers), and presumptuous extrapolation which takes no account of the nature of site readers (more technical readers altogether obstruct trackers). Suffice to say, relying on guesswork – attributed to such a young third party (Alexa.com used to be a more authoritative source, but Amazon bought that site and shut it down only a few years ago) - does not bode well for the tech-savvy observers. For instance, similarweb.com – which the same barrister previously used as a yardstick - wrongly asserts that techrights.org is based in Germany and employs people. The heuristics are maladjusted, they’re just guesswork. They compensate with gimmicks and UI polish for a lack of accurate information, gathered from very few people who welcome spyware and then extrapolated sparingly, guessed at rather poorly. Put succinctly, similarweb.com was already rejected by the Defendant as a yardstick or reliable measure of anything. It may have become fashionable in recent years, but it should not be used as a legal basis for anything, not just because of caching, ad blocking, JavaScript blocking, and numerous demographic properties (technical people tend to block trackers; the attributes thus vary considerably). The site in question, like lean sites which are frequented by people who subscribe to RSS feeds, targets a niche of technical people or people associated with particular activities, organisations etc. All in all, the premise of this point merits scrutiny and serves to show lazy interpretation of the sites’ reach, based on fashionable ‘webservices’ run by private companies. This speaks volumes of the lack of tech-savvy people at Brett Wilson LLP, which recently sent massive E-mails containing whole videos inside the signature (they corrected this mistake much later) and uploaded sensitive trial data to Microsoft, a party of interest in a case.
-
3.The assertion that “Techrights website uses analytics” is manifestly false. Techrights has log files (for Apache server, i.e. the software that processes and also manages a dynamic queue of page requests; it receives queries and then delivers the respective pages as required) and those are rotated daily, then permanently deleted after 2 weeks. The rotation ensures privacy and better compatibility with EU GDPR – something that Roy’s sites have long supported, even out in the open. There is no processing of log data except a scan of log files at the end of every day (this has only been done since January or February 2024 because code was implemented to show popular articles). It is patently untrue and overambitious to assert that the site a) knows how many people accessed articles published last year and b) has access to such data. Roy sites’ privacy policy was published when EU GDPR laws came into effect, stating that within weeks all data gets deleted, for good, and will never get shared or processed anywhere. This practice of log-shredding goes several decades back. It is not even new. This helps secure and protect the dignity of readers, whose ideology tends to value such a policy. To challenge such a policy would be to undermine not only the site and its authors but also the expectations of its audience. Roy’s sites habitually speak about the importance of privacy in a well-functioning democracy, where wannabe dictators can otherwise profile and impunitively punish people based on what they read, write, or even merely think (the latter can be loosely deduced based on the former). Accessing of logs with impunity would serve no purpose other than to discredit the sites, harming their reputation as the Claimant very much wishes and wished all along. Privacy is on the one hand demanded by the Claimant, but on the other hand the Claimant also demands access to data that isn’t available, due to privacy. The Claimant cannot have it both ways. Such contradictions or contradictory demands aren’t in the interest of the Claimant. If one insists that privacy and data protection be respected, then it’s wrong to demand access to other people’s private data.
-
4.The site does not do - and never bothered with - Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) – a notorious practice strongly condemned by the site for a whole range of reasons. It’s not particularly interested in - and never really targeted - search engines, which are by their very nature (and their inherent business model) censorious and vengeful. They also gravitate towards LLM slop “summaries” or “overviews” – a subject of an antitrust complaint against Alphabet’s Google in the EU as of July 2025. So-called ‘search’ providers delist and derank sites/pages based on criteria outside the auditable controls of democracy and established law, usually based on commercial objectives, irrespective of relevance, accuracy, and the well-being of users. So the site barely cares about search engines and it never really did. The lion’s share of its traffic - since its inception in 2006 - comes from RSS feeds, so to obsess over rankings in search engines such as Google would be to intentionally overlook or mis-frame intent, as if the articles were composed or headlines worded to cause harm by search engines rather than to inform their regulars’ pairs of eyes (actual readers, not Web spiders/crawlers), who rely on efficiency-enhancing syndication tools (akin to subscribing to a particular site of interest as if it was a magazine/daily newspaper). Both sites moreover have no presence at all in social media sites, and that’s by intention and by design, which further affirms a commitment to accuracy rather than clickbait. To paint the matter as an intentional campaign of “sabotage” – or inter alia tarnish a name through some foreign, third-party search engine – is to deeply misunderstand the site and how the publication therein actually work. They do not rely on search engines at all. In fact, perhaps less than 1% of the traffic comes from search engines, pending an actual analysis/scrutiny (which the Defendant certainly refrain from doing as it would impinge upon readers’ dignity). The legal action is sadly trying to rattle long-held principles, impinging on every reader’s rights as an individual. The Defendant would rightly hesitate to let the Claimant alter the longstanding policy, under the false supposition of guilt or a presumption of culpability. Caution needs to be exercised, bearing in mind the true inertia of a 3-year campaign by his friend Matthew Garrett to harm the sites with legal threats (not acted upon at all until 2024 in springtime). Spectacularly, the very action taken against the site in the name of “morality” seeks to make them less moral, mostly by imposing unreasonable demands on them.
-
5.There is a frequently-repeated assertion by the Claimant that people exposed to the articles are in an overlapping niche group; the same can be said about the Defendant’s site, which was lied about by the Claimant in the Garrett Case, even in public, targeting many of the same people in the same interest groups and professional domain, notably the technical field but not limited to it.
-
6.The Claimant very well understands – as this was publicly signalled many times in the past – that the Defendant works over 100 hours a week (each!) on the site and other tasks connected to the site. The Claimant knows that starting legal action can slow the site down considerably and gradually demoralise the authors, among others, irrespective of the actual merit/s of his claims. Also – perhaps most importantly - irrespective of the outcome, the sites may suffer in a number of ways, not limited to an otherwise-rapid pace of publication (speed counts a lot because news can age fast) as there are many maintenance-oriented tasks, even research and housekeeping. If the goal is to cause harm rather than to actually win a case, then it’s a factor that merits bringing into consideration, a facet that ought to be at least partially accounted for.
-
-
8.Paragraph 8 is denied in its entirety.
-
1.The arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Graveley (Lakeway PD case # 21-01655) is real, not libel. austintexas.gov said (openly accessible to all) the full name and "STRANGULATION" (All Capital Letters). This was not a secret, Mr. Graveley knows it is not a secret; he just wanted to face no scrutiny or hoped for a lack of public awareness. When Jose Garza sought to take legal power in Austin, Texas, the US lawyer of Mr. Graveley contributed a rather obscene amount, $11,000, even more than some very large law firms. The form confirming this was "provided by Texas Ethics Commission" and reproduced by Techrights in 2023. An article explaining this was published on Sep. 29, 2023. The article in 2023 said: "Apparently, the lawyer that contacted us last year (Rick Cofer) has been bribing the DA. Based on publicly-available records, he gave $11k to the DA this year. We were pursuing hard proof for a while and decided we wouldn't publish till then. It’s on the public election filings now. Search for "Jose Garza" and once you look through the document*, you’ll see two donations from Rick Cofer." More than 10% of the contributions raised that year came from one person: Rick (Richard) Cofer. He had sent me an E-mail prior to that telling me a lie (see Appendix II), which I responded to at the time. It coincided with Mr. Graveley sending me several E-mails begging me to remove publications (see Appendix III). He didn't say what was wrong about them, he just said they damaged his professional and personal life. His endeavour became futile; he wanted not to become a better person but instead to hunt down anyone who knew or wrote about what he did and had done for years already (there are prior victims).
-
2. Privacy is a precarious matter. So is the safety of women. When violent men misuse "privacy" to mindlessly pursue censorship of what they do to women, then privacy as a concept may earn a bad name if not scorn - that it to say, the public interest overcomes the oversensitive ego of a man who assaults women and tells women to kill themselves. Moreover, disclosure as such may help prevent further abuse if not fatalities (deaths) of women.
-
3.GDPR, with roots in central and continental Europe or the EU (when the United Kingdom was in it, prior to 'Brexit' nearly a decade ago), was meant to guard the powerless citizens from data-hungry corporations whose ambition was to effectively weaponise such data for commercial gain while at the same time - more so if based overseas - passing the same data to governments, introducing the risk of political and industrial espionage.
-
4.There are many legitimate questions to be raised herein: first, to what extent does the (UK)GDPR extend to US citizens? Is it applicable at all this case (as noted above, it is not)? What about time limitations? And if it's asserted within time limits, why was no claim hitherto made? Was there a "trigger", such as prior litigation that went awry, initiated by an old friend (they had spoken about one another mutually in the Techrights IRC network and their own personal sites)? Was the law firm opportunistically proposing, like in Dale Vince v Daily Mail (Mail Online) or Vince v Associated Newspapers Limited (KB-2024-004147), that GDPR gets thrown in to cushion an otherwise futile case that's not only out of time but also without merit? What would be the ramifications for the reputation of GDPR in the UK if the general public became aware that it is leveraged by people who attack women to silence those women and even people who merely explain, correctly, what happened?
-
5. The San Francisco Chronicle published the article "Tech exec sues journalist for $25M for publishing his sealed arrest report" on the same week Mr. Graveley and Brett Wilson LLP advanced a meritless case. The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A tech executive is suing a journalist for $25 million for reporting, accurately, that he had been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence." In the case of Mr. Graveley, none of what was published had been sealed. Even if it gets sealed in the future, that does not apply retroactively, hence everything published in Techrights was perfectly acceptable, in line with American and British laws, and very crucial for the public to know, more so bearing in mind and fully knowing there was a chain of victims and breaking this chain can save lives.
-
6.To summarise, the combination of three things here is improper and malicious in its own right. As per the skeleton arguments from the Hearing (Mr. Graveley v Dr. Roy Schestowitz, 18/06/2025), the augmented arguments herein are actually rather simple: This is a very complicated case against me, more so because it was made over-complicated, both superficially and artificially, by a legal team that knows it lacks merit. I wanted it narrowed down so as to make it manageable and understandable, which is why I asked for a Trial of Preliminary Issues (TPI). I did not understand that a Defendant had to set out his defence before asking for a TPI. I did understand that a Defendant is usually asked to set out the bones of his defence before the trial.
Many more examples of copy-pasting are yet to come, to be clearly shown (in a way that makes comparisons straightforward); maybe at one point we'll formally report this for failing to meet (or for breaching) barristers' standards/rules. It's not infeasible and it is well overdue.Aren't barristers ever required to assess the morality of their clients? More so from other continents? If there's no "quality control", it'll end up staining the reputation of the entire occupation and its impact on national security. Taking "shortcuts" (such as slop) to climb the ladder or get ahead is not a sustainable strategy. It's immoral and self-harming (also harming or harmful to one's peers and trust in them). It is a form of cheating with collective consequences. █
Previously:
-