SLAPP Censorship - Part 61 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Must Understand That Reporting Women's Issues in the United States of America (“the US”) is Not Impermissible
It's a real text message from Alex Graveley (Microsoft); this might also constitute a crime in the US, set aside apparent fraud [1, 2] implicating a CEO at Microsoft
In yesterday's part we showed what happens when you cover Microsoft corruption and have real effect by reporting this to large audiences. They'll come for you and also for your family. You may even receive death threats from burner accounts. What a lovely company Microsoft is... truly adorable people.
Remember that Garrett and Graveley are American. I've not visited the US since 2006 (when I presented a paper in Arlington), so what do they even want from me? They operate through the very same hired gun, and they coordinated this (Garrett admitted this after he and his solicitors repeatedly lied to several High Court judges for several months).
A year ago Graveley responded (within days) - via their joint hired guns - to Garrett ordered by a High Court judge to put in a defence after my wife and I had counter-sued him [1, 2]. Prior to that he hibernated. He was used as a weapon of blackmail or a hostile (threatening) 'bargaining chip' against us despite having no prospects of success (he had begged).
In 19-20 of his Garrett 'copypasta' (about 60% of their claims are completely identical!) he asserted that somehow I, for reporting how he was arrested and charged for strangling women in Texas, was the real problem. Because I mentioned it. How dare I? How dare his victims speak out? Heck, he seems to have committed a crime in the US by telling them to kill themselves. Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB are totally fine working with such Americans against domestic (UK) bloggers. What does that tell us about Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB? Or about the ever-so-urgent need for reform?
Here is my response to 19-20, as per my counterclaim:
-
18.Paragraph 18 is also denied as mere projected. Those who suffered damage are the women on whom Mr. Graveley had inflicted harm, he is not the victim here. Techrights merely told the story. It should be noted that there is a similarity here to the Garrett Case.
-
1.It should be noted that Mr. Graveley’s litigation partner, who is also American, referred to such legal action as "funny", as if to say that public interest reporting being attacked in another continent would be a joke and helping an American monopoly in a UK court would also be funny. When covering over 20 years or somebody's abuse against many people (victims) and their family members it is by no stretch of imagination "funny" subjecting them to a lawsuit; it's just obscene inversion of narratives, wherein the victims are presented as the problem. Mr. Graveley used the US court similarly against his victims and failed, albeit it caused them financial damage (through abuse of process). Such abuse ought not be tolerated or entertained by a court of law anywhere in the world.
"Malicious Falsehood" is not even remotely applicable here. As it was put to the Judge before the June Hearing, the claim against me was put in three ways:
-
2.“Libel” in context:
-
i.Libel does not apply to factual statements. I moreover believe that the claim is out of time. The alleged libel was in 2021 or thereabouts, the claim was issued in October 2024. I think the Judge can rule on that as a preliminary issue;
-
-
-
-
-
ii.If the Judge thinks that the claim is in time, then rather than me rushing off and throwing all defences at it, it would be best if the judge rules what the words I used meant, and whether they are an opinion or facts.
-
-
3.Malicious Falsehood in context:
-
i.I don't know why this has been claimed against me. I hope that a Judge could rule on how I need to answer this or even if I have to answer this. I attached a link to a case from the Supreme Court in 2024, George v Cannell where a claim for Malicious Falsehood seems misconceived – I.e. a lot of effort where there can be no damage. I want judicial guidance on how I deal with this. I think the case is just put to make me spend a lot of time and costs. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2024/19.image.pdf
-
-
4.Data Protection in context:.
-
i.Again, I do not know why this has been thrown in unless the Claimant realises that he's out of time for the Libel claim. If that is the case, then it is a completely different case, and one that should be heard in the local County Court, if there is a case at all.
-
-
5.In short, it seems like the real issue at hand is his allegations of libel, albeit he never acted on this matter and realise that he is out of time but wishes to help a friend, whom he describes in his site as “another former Microsoft researcher”.
-
6.As noted already in the Garrett Case: “The processing by the Defendant was at all material times undertaken with a view to the publication of journalistic material. It is therefore denied that the Defendants have acted in breach of statutory duty, whether as alleged in paragraphs 15 to 22 of the Particulars of Claim or at all. Pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 5, Paragraph 26 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the Journalistic Exemption”), the Defendants have at all material times been exempt from the provisions of UK GDPR relied on by the Claimant.” Under Particulars it noted: “The content of the Websites is journalistic material that reports on matters of public interest concerning, in summary, computing, internet policy and development, the activities of ‘big tech’, FOSS and related subjects, including the activities of persons concerned with those subjects. The Defendants have been publishing such journalistic material for nearly 20 years.” In 29.3 it said: “At all material times the Defendants believed that the application of the provisions listed in paragraph 29.4 below would be incompatible with the special purpose of journalism and that, having regard to the special importance of the public interest in the freedom of expression, publication of the words complained of was in the public interest. Paragraph 17 and subparagraphs above is repeated.”
-
7.Regarding the premises, as noted in the Garrett Case in relation to the same site: “In the premises, by operation of the Journalistic Exemption the Defendants’ journalism in Publications 1 – 24 and in Additional Publications 25 – 49 is exempt from the requirements of Articles 5, 10, 11(2), 17 and 21 (among other provisions) of UK GDPR.”
-
-
19. Paragraph 19 is denied and just because Mr. Graveley had “distress and embarrassment” does not mean the reporter should be held accountable for anything. Mr. Graveley should stop abusing women to avoid further “distress and embarrassment”.
And speaking of “distress and embarrassment”, consider what the lawyers were instructed to do. They try to send massive bills (of their own making) to the person who merely acted as a Good Samaritan.
-
1.Brett Wilson LLP were threatening me with "indemnity costs" which I understand are even higher than normal costs. I think this is very unfair. This was done ahead of a hearing by the Court to direct how this case should go on. I feel that this case is bullying me because I have not given in to a claim made by one of their other clients, Mr. Garrett, who is also based in the US and is personally and professionally connected to this one. They are taking aim at my finances and nothing else. They also used almost 1,000 pages to make it unmanageable both for me and for the Judge. I have tried to make this case manageable for me and the Court. I, unlike the Claimant, didn't face a criminal court, and this civil case (to which I was dragged into by an America) is about covering up what happened in an actual criminal court in another continent, which seems absurd. Writing about someone's crime is not a crime.
-
2.As noted in the Garrett Case, which mirrors the projection tactics seen herein: “if it is true that the Claimant has experienced distress he has brought such distress upon himself […]“ (the response in the Garrett Case applies here and supersedes all)
-
3.To quote from the Garrett Case (Paragraph 19): “The Defendants cannot properly respond to complaint of “global publication” as regards the equivalence of defamation law elsewhere with that of England and Wales. If publication in any jurisdiction other than England and Wales is substantial it is most likely to be publication in the United States of America (“the US”). It is denied that defamation law in the US is the same as English law. In any event, the Claimant is put to strict proof as to substantial publication in any particular jurisdiction.”
We've got a long way to go. It'll get more interesting next month. █
Previously:
-