SLAPP Censorship - Part 50 Out of 200: The Time Staff of Law Firm Burgess Mee Was Showing Up in Letters Sent for a Serial Strangler From Microsoft
posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 18, 2026
Family-friendly? No.
Today we reach the "quarter" (or 25%) milestone of this series, but there will be plenty more series in years to come, reviewing many aspects of the system, including the regulator (we've set this series aside for now because our politicians are actively chasing those things). As we showed in the previous part, there's a "copypasta" (copy-paste) industry that isn't honest about what it's doing and is overcharging clients, including "Violent Americans (Microsoft) Who Tell Women to Kill Themselves". It is very much in the public interest that we publish information about this - something that our barrister from Ofcom encouraged us to do (even back in 2024; he said or insinuated this was the most awful lawfare-like attack on media that he had ever seen).
It is a weekend right now, so we don't want to make this part very long or somewhat repetitive. Instead we'll put below a continuation of the response to the "copypasta" from the 5RB barrister who does not even know his client's name and merely copied his particulars (in the Particulars of Claim), then changed one digit for the Serial Strangler from Microsoft.
-
10.It must be noted that a solicitor external to Brett Wilson LLP was used to handle communications related to the client, Mr. Graveley. While this may be permissible, it is highly misleading as the signature misplaces credit and thus - inter alia - liability. Good practices for law firms should include if not demand better transparency. In fact, Brett Wilson LLP very seldom signed any communications with the real name of a real person, just a generic "Brett Wilson LLP". Even the signatures were a generic (non-human) “BW” pasted in, obscuring who was responsible for what (e.g. when filing a complaint). Maybe that’s due to erratic staff turnover, which they hoped to hide from clients and other parties alike. This impeded work by the SRA and undermined a proper investigation which pin-points principal culprits. That issue too shall be pursued in the future, for it is a poor practice.
-
11. It should be noted that the lawyer involved in the above abuse is the exact same lawyer who only months later sent threatening letters to Rianne Schestowitz (while intentionally using the wrong name, which she had not used for well over a decade) and then did the same to Roy Schestowitz, twice in the same year, followed by lawsuits, in which he was instructed by two Americans who know each other, speak to each other, talk about each other in public, and likely "connive" to attack the legal budget of Rianne and Roy, rather than actually work to legitimately win the case. This strategy is affirmed by many attempts to settle on unfavourable terms, with a threat being made for refusing to accept such inappropriate offers (they also insist we must not ever mention that because they always add “without prejudice” and then issue threats – however and whatever this embarrassing matter is brought up). The word "threat" is explicitly used by the law firm and the lawyer to explain what he is doing with such letters. To make matters worse, not only were many such threats made repeatedly, they were only sent by E-mail at times and also sent to a lawyer not on record/file, as if to exert pressure on Roy by making improper communication to a third party. Perhaps they hoped that by contacting a person not meant to be contacted they would incur additional fees, too.
-
12.On 20 July 2022 the UK Government issued a publication entitled "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)" in which it gave the "Government response to call for evidence" as follows: "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Protection, or SLAPPs, are a growing threat to freedom of speech and a free press – fundamental liberties that are the lifeblood of our democracy. Typically used by the super-rich, SLAPPs stifle legitimate reporting and debate. They are at their most pernicious before cases ever reach a courtroom, with seemingly endless legal letters that threaten our journalists, academics, and campaigners with sky-high costs and damages. SLAPPs pile on the pressure until investigations into corruption are shut down, and some individuals or corporations are regarded as ‘no go’ zones, because of the risk of legal retaliation."
-
13.The government then mentioned how the UK legal system is being misused from abroad (like the US in this case) to make hopeless claims or "baseless legal claims are being made by oligarchs and corporations".
-
14.Consider what's at stake in this case. They are trying to apply British free speech standards (or restrictions) to US affairs, which are real and very serious. When a law firm (and barrister) is using the same playbook over and over again with the same templates/s and almost identical modus operandi it becomes a moral imperative to 1) push back and 2) explain this to the public so as to curtail further repetition.
Burgess Mee responded to us on this matter, unlike Brett Wilson LLP. We also discovered they were using multiple barristers, based on the metadata.
Is 5RB aware of what it's putting its name on (or associating with)? █
Previously:
|
|
| 2026-03-03 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 1 Out of 200: Claim No. KB-2024-001270 in a Nutshell |
| 2026-03-04 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 2 Out of 200: Detailed Timeline From 2012 (Attack on Reporters That Question Restricted Boot) to 2024 (Lawsuit Against Reporter and His Wife in Another Continent) |
| 2026-03-05 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 3 Out of 200: A More In-Depth Breakdown |
| 2026-03-06 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 4 Out of 200: Rianne’s Version of Events and Narrative |
| 2026-03-07 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 5 Out of 200: Clearly Not a Security Professional/Expert, Only Ever Pretending to be One |
| 2026-03-08 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 6 Out of 200: Intentionally Misnaming Women, People Who Offered to Testify That They Too Had Been Subjected to Similar Abuse |
| 2026-03-09 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 7 Out of 200: Like With the Serial Strangler From Microsoft, Misuse of UK-GDPR to Try to Hide Embarrassing Facts |
| 2026-03-10 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 8 Out of 200: Gross Misuse of UKGDPR to Protect the Agenda of American Back Doors (Mass Surveillance) |
| 2026-03-11 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 9 Out of 200: 5RB Barrister Does Not Even Know the Name of His Own Client (That He Was Paid Well Over $200,000 to 'Speak' or 'Cover' for) |
| 2026-03-12 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 10 Out of 200: Showing Public Tweets is Not a Privacy Violation, But This Isn't About Justice, It's About Censorship |
| 2026-03-13 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 11 Out of 200: Cannot Censor His Spouse, Accusations Are Repeated Today |
| 2026-03-14 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 12 Out of 200: Months Ahead of Serial Strangler From Microsoft Who Helped Double the Lawsuits (Funded by Third Parties) as 'Revenge' for Exposing Crimes |
| 2026-03-15 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 13 Out of 200: Abuse of Process to Make False Accusations of UKGDPR Violations |
| 2026-03-16 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 14 Out of 200: The Abusive Cases of the Serial Strangler From Microsoft and His Litigation Buddy Garrett Did Cause "Serious Harm" |
| 2026-03-17 |
Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 14 Out of 200: Men Who Strangle Women (and Worse) Trying to Force Us to Write Public Apologies to These Men |
| 2026-03-18 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 15 Out of 200: Background and Particulars of Truth Regarding Techrights and Tux Machines |
| 2026-03-19 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 16 Out of 200: Detailing the Actors and Explaining Techrights' Own Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Network |
| 2026-03-20 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 17 Out of 200: A Long Track Record of Online Abuse, Then Choosing a Low-Cost Law Firm to Muzzle People Who Have Illuminated This Abuse for Over a Decade |
| 2026-03-21 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 18 Out of 200: Third Parties Funding Attacks on the Messengers, Lawsuits Against GAFAM-Critical Voices That Uphold Real National Security |
| 2026-03-22 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 19 Out of 200: They Were Ill-prepared for Tough Questions in Cross-Examination |
| 2026-03-23 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 20 Out of 200: All Roads Lead to Rome and to GAFAM Funding |
| 2026-03-24 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 21 Out of 200: It's About Behaviour Online, Not How Much Money From Shadowy Third Parties Gets Spent on Lawyers and Two Barristers |
| 2026-03-24 |
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) |
| 2026-03-25 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 23 Out of 200: We Were Right All Along (for 2 Years) About Third Party Funding and Willingness to 'Break the Bank' in Pursuit of "Revenge" |
| 2026-03-26 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 24 Out of 200: The Failed Effort by Brett Wilson LLP to Strike Out My Lawsuit and My Wife's Lawsuit Against Garrett (the Master Allowed Our Lawsuits to Proceed) |
| 2026-03-27 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 25 Out of 200: That Time Matthew J. Garrett Got Temporarily Banned/Suspended From Twitter |
| 2026-03-28 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 26 Out of 200: Asking for Documents and Information You Already Have, Even Letters and E-mails That You Yourself Sent! |
| 2026-03-29 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 27 Out of 200: Using the Tor Network to Hide From Consequences |
| 2026-03-30 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 28 Out of 200: Facing Consequences for Impersonation and Worse |
| 2026-03-31 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 29 Out of 200: Violent Language Won't Go Away When You Use It in Your Site, Blog, and Social Control Media |
| 2026-04-01 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 30 Out of 200: The Time We Reported Abuse to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and It Was Escalated to Its Cybercrime Unit |
| 2026-04-02 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 31 Out of 200: Speaking About 20+ Years of Alleged Harassment/Defamation and High-Profile 'Targets' of Garrett |
| 2026-04-03 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 32 Out of 200: Garrett Made Spurious Requests (Later Withdrawn) the Same Week Someone He Later Spoke to by E-mail Sent Threats to Our Webhost |
| 2026-04-03 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 33 Out of 200: Garrett Sued by My Wife and I, Then His Microsoft Acquaintance Files Another Lawsuit and Our Webhost Receives Legal Threats Too |
| 2026-04-04 |
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 |
| 2026-04-05 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 35 Out of 200: How to Make ~10,000 Pound Sterling (13,220.50 United States Dollars) by Copy-Pasting and Editing 10 Pages |
| 2026-04-06 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 36 Out of 200: Claim KB-2024-003529 in a Nutshell (Microsoft Employee Does Terrible Things, Then Sues the Reporter in Another Continent) |
| 2026-04-07 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 37 Out of 200: The Correct Suspicion Garrett and Graveley Were Collaborating in Overseas Litigation Against Critics |
| 2026-04-08 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 38 Out of 200: Advertisement or £10,000+ Classified Ad in the Form of Court Filing in Another Continent |
| 2026-04-08 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 39 Out of 200: Recycled Text for Garrett and Graveley (Buy One, Get One Free?) |
| 2026-04-09 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 40 Out of 200: Putting Forth Frivolous Claim Only a Few Days Before Running Out of Time (12 Months) |
| 2026-04-10 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 41 Out of 200: More Misuse of UK-GDPR (for US Citizens), More Copy-Pasting for Garrett and Graveley, Alleging That Publishing Unflattering Information is a 'Privacy' Issue |
| 2026-04-10 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 42 Out of 200: Getting the Very Basic Technical Concepts Very Wrong, or Where Miscomprehension Begets "Plausible Deniability" |
| 2026-04-11 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 43 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Particulars of Claims Almost Identical and 5RB Needs to Investigate Its Barristers (Its Reputation is at Stake) |
| 2026-04-12 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 44 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley 'Copypasta' Sunday (Copy-Paste, Add One Word, Change 'T' to 't') |
| 2026-04-13 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 45 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Cases Inherently the Same, Their Legal Team Can Barely Even Distinguish (Full Timeline) |
| 2026-04-14 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 46 Out of 200: Alex Graveley's Attorney Rick Cofer Did Not Deny That Graveley Had Strangled Women; He Did, However, Pay Local Officials |
| 2026-04-14 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 47 Out of 200: British Courts Are Not Censorship Offices for Americans Funded by Affluent Third Parties |
| 2026-04-16 |
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 |
| 2026-04-17 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 49 Out of 200: Two Americans, One Case, Recycled for Low Budget at Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB Barristers |
