SLAPP Censorship - Part 59 Out of 200: Mentioning the Fact Alex Graveley Arrested and Charged for Strangulation in Texas is "Reckless" and "Malicious", According to His 'Hired Guns' in London
Miguel de Icaza commenting on the relationship between Alex Graveley and GitHub's CEO Nat Friedman (who was removed from his post shortly after Graveley got arrested and Garrett, Graveley's litigation buddy, started his SLAPPs [1, 2]; all four are in GNOME and have served Microsoft's agenda from inside GNOME):
In the previous part we showed how it was framed as "malicious" to point out what the attorney of Graveley, court records, police records etc. had already documented very clearly. Notice how they're framing our reporting on this:
In my counterclaim last summer, I responded as follows:
14. This is denied as well and it is abundantly vague, too. There is no actual falsehoods specified in this claim, nor is one cited and quoted. The words cited in Paragraph 5 are not false (distortions of the words are denied) and, where they are an expression of opinion, they are based on verified, authentic material.
14.1. Paragraph 5 was in fact the reason why a TPI was requested to deal with Paragraph 3, which Paragraph 5 cites. The Claimant not only fought hard against the TPI; the firm even sought outside help from a former employee or employees (the metadata reveals several of them, not one). Almost 1,000 pages were sent to Master Gidden ahead of a 60-minute Hearing and the lawyer even stayed in the Office (or some remote workplace) working until almost 9PM on a Friday. In other words, enormous resources were devoted to trying to crush the TPI application. One staff that sent many of the letters regarding the TPI works for Burgess Mee LLP, which unlike Brett Wilson LLP is actually growing (added 5 staff in a year, according to its accountants; Companies House makes that apparent) and net assets grew too.
14.2. The resources being pitted against an LIP were rather telling, with an eye-watering bill sent by post to the Defendant only a day before the Hearing. The goal of such lawsuits is not to actually win but rather to attack financial resources of the other side, leaving it more vulnerable and eager to capitulate, basically to throw in the towel and agree to anything, no matter how unjust and humiliating. In this particular case, the "double-dipping" or two related people attacking the same person at the same time, is further reinforcing the intent or this malicious, sinister strategy. A TPI by a LIP, where the basis thereof is clearly explained and based on research by a LIP, could reduce costs and illuminate the key points - going by them it would be obvious that the case is meritless. But instead, the Claimant made a choice to overcomplicate matters, to throw almost a thousand pages at the Judge (or at the wall, hoping something might stick), doubling the effect by using the other case to do the same to a single individual, in essence fighting off a team of about 10 lawyers (to whom this is a full-time job). That includes at least 2 outsiders, as Brett Wilson LLP clearly used staff that's not listed in its Web site and which works for other companies. What exactly was the budget allocated for this case and why? Answers are needed in the name of transparency, but Brett Wilson LLP always resorts to name-calling. It refuses to answer such questions.
14.3. Instead of the TPI being considered at first instance, later with the bones of the defence put forth, I was asked to first respond to the claims one at a time, which again I decided to do as LIP because this should really be a trivial case, more so knowing that the exact same lawyer also targeted Dan Neidle of TaxPolicy and, based on consultation with NGOs, Brett Wilson LLP already earned notoriety in this domain. Generally speaking, judges and regulators would be suspicious of Brett Wilson LLP by default, seeing its distant and more so its recent track record. As already explained earlier, claims of libel were put forth despite timeliness being an obvious problem, set aside the supportive evidence that makes the articles both accurate and correct as per authentic documents (hard evidence, not speculation). Regarding "malicious" being tossed in, probably as an afterthought, it's about wasting more money (people can testify that no such thing qualifies as malicious), so it's an extremely frivolous addition which probably serves to discredit rather than complement the claims of libel. Lastly, regarding privacy or GDPR, the evidence presented was public, it was not sealed either, and even if some assertion is made about legality of access and/or reproduction it should not be dealt (in isolation) in the High Court). This is the same sort of "abuse of process" (to quote Justice Swift) that Brett Wilson LLP maliciously engaged in just recently in the Dale Vince case. It seems like a modus operandi and it must be pointed out.
14.4. It seems exceedingly abusive to do this to a person who always wrote pro bono (in fact, losing money, not earning money, due to costs associated with hosting and other bills), having done so for over 2 decades based on true devotion and passion. Contrariwise, the people who brought forth the frivolous cases earned 6-figure salaries and always aimed for the highest salary possible; they just cannot tolerate honest criticism. They are not only bullying critics but also their victims, in my case the wife of a victim (whilst using the wrong name as an extra insult). It was them who were put in prison, yet they want victims and sources to be punished - as if those who pursue justice are the real problem.
14.5. A TPI would not only save time; it would also distil the case. An aspect of extortion of already being dealt with by the SRA, set aside police case opened against several people involved in the abuse against us - for it an extensive and years-long campaign of harassment - hence the counterclaim filed in September 2024.
14.6. In the above-mentioned Vince case, as per a final judgment, there is abuse of process (or harassment by process). This matters as this shows the very same blueprint leveraged by the exact same firm. It basically misuses licences and law degrees to facilitate harassment for (or at the behest of) clients, even for people from another continent, acting as what the media calls "guns for hire" operating on their behalf. Pens can be mightier than swords and weaponising law degrees is a disgrace to the occupation if left unregulated.
This week should be calm and we're almost in May already. The series will go on and then we'll start/resume some more series (such as the SRA series, as soon as the time is right). █