SLAPP Censorship - Part 73 Out of 200: Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett Remain Closely Connected in May 2026 ("Tag-Teaming" Against Bloggers in Another Continent)
The phrase "judge a person by their friends" seems applicable here.
It keeps happening; they further reinforce our assertion that they lied to many judges and are therefore likely in contempt of court. Why do they keep doing this? It is crystal clear that Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett continue to collaborate and coordinate in 2026. They are, in a sense, digging their own grave (deeper and deeper) because they don't know how to silence some person in another continent who reports on what they did (and their hired guns have plenty to hide, too).
In the last part we discussed about a dozen grounds upon which they can be considered in contempt of court and/or abuse of process (they are notorious for it, months ago they got sued by their own clients [1, 2, 3]) and today we discuss this further. Based on public records, the hired guns seem to be on the verge of insolvency right now. What they want is "revenge" (against the person they attacked), they don't seek justice. They'd even take violent people from a distant continent as clients. Having lost a lot of money, they are willing to lose even more money for "revenge", perhaps failing to recognise that malice like this is assured to backfire. This is really poor an effort, either from a legal perspective or a "reputation laundering" perspective.
To quote from my 2025 counterclaim:
Closing words regarding the Defence
-
-
1.Legal 500 describes Brett Wilson LLP as "[a] go-to firm for anyone facing a reputational crisis" (that is the first sentence). It seems like this case if about reputation laundering, but it is not disguised as PR and instead blames the person who merely repeated what was already known about someone with a really bad reputation, even among his peers and colleagues. To quote what a friend and former housemate said about Mr. Graveley, “everyone knows he’s mentally ill.” As Garrett openly admit that he sought professional psychological help, that too may be something they have in common, other than the cases, the template, the lawyer, the barrister, and country of residence etc.
-
-
-
2.An important note on unoriginal work in the Garrett Case and Graveley Case:
-
1.This Defence was prepared 100% by hand, in a word processor used by the Defendant. The same cannot be said with certainty about the other side.
-
2.As noted before, that legal team, which metadata shows to comprise the entire office and even external firms, threw nearly 1,000 pages at a Judge ahead of a 60-minute Hearing.
-
3. Techrights has never covered any story with such a ludicrous imbalance of time and material (Techrights wrote about many cases since 2006), let alone imagined that Techrights itself would be subjected to that.
-
4."If [the legal team] has been feeding AI slop to the courts via the documents," one person explained to me (for reference see https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/), "[that] it has turned in, then that shows not just unforgivable lack of respect to the institution but actual contempt. That is in addition to the AI slop being a exceedingly low cost DoS [denial of service] but effective of the court's resources." But "that's IFF [if and only if] there is any slop present in their documents." So far we can only verify with complete certainty that masses of texts are being reused to compose letters, claims etc. Demonstrating that some are machine-generated and doing so with high certainty would be a lot more challenging, but we cannot rule that out.
-
5.I can report with a reasonably high level of confidence, based on profound familiarity with the Particulars of Claim (POC) in both cases that I ever got served in my lifetime, that 30-40% (the exact figure depends what/how one measures similarity; there are mild edits and the text is 'fluid') of Barrister H's POC (it is noteworthy that they chose not only that one firm but even the same barrister at that firm) for Graveley is copy-pasted from Garrett's POC? They moreover chose the same lawyer (not just same law firm in another continent), albeit the cases have been escalated to the chief, Mr. Wilson (Partner), based on the metadata in some files they sent around (they transmit metadata unwittingly, unmasking their authors).
-
6.It should be noted that it is not clear if the other Wilson, someone else with the surname Wilson, in the documents' metadata - not limited to letters and communications - is his wife or a second Barrister with the same surname (the Barrister apparently knows of Mr. Wilson as MRS JUSTICE COLLINS RICE cited Brett Wilson in her 2023 case, based on a decision in ALAN MCGEE v KATIE LEWIS; see https://vlex.co.uk/vid/alan-mcgee-v-katie-939534702 ), but nobody can deny that they devoted huge resources to this. They nowadays handle it like their own "project" rather than their American clients'. This, to a fair and objective judge, should be considered or seen as a critical factor that must be weighed in. It seems disproportionate and unfair to stack up about 10 people (with a legal licence) in London, including outsiders, against one humble Litigant in Person based in Manchester, not to mention his wife, who was merely a victim (she wrote about what had been done to her).
-
7.Regarding the overlap in the POCs, my understanding of laws and practices is that they are allowed to do that, even if to the recipient it seems like a shameful practice that may imply laziness (overcharging clients to churn out the same text again and again). The thing for me to point out, however, is not that they are wrong to do it, but the fact that it shows the cases are very close, both technically and tactically. They are "double-dipping" the Court's docket and they attempt to do so economically at the expense of 1) the respondent/s and 2) the Court. That should be a crucial factor, more so in an age of controversy over attorneys deferring to chatbots and grafting LLM slop to make up copious volumes of text. What would the Bar Standards Board think of barristers who not only repeatedly pick on the same people for strategic purposes (bolstering one case by filing another for a friend) and then reusing the text and tactics for the sole purpose of exhausting legal budgets?
-
8.So we basically deal with two POCs, for two people who are close, delivered by the same Barrister and same Lawyer. That is in addition to the Barrister advancing obviously abusive litigation. In the Hearing in June he attempted to portray me as a racist; the Master was not even remotely convinced (the racist and sexist tone started at their end, I was reacting to it). They repeatedly play dirty, they also sent close to 1,000 pages for the Master to process ahead of a short Hearing. That helps drown out the signal and hardly give me any time to speak. This is abusive at every turn and merely pointing out the abuse - even in public – is therefore imperative.
-
-
The next part will deal with my counterclaim, which can be further strengthened. What they did was so horrible that it will likely result in the downfall of the law firm and the barrister (his employer was already notified preliminarily last month). █
Previously: