Microsoft/GNOME 9/11

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Sep 11, 2026

Garrett and Graveley (Microsoft/GNOME) will have a lot to explain

(Yes, I'm perfectly aware other people can check the code; no sensitive information is given there and it's infeasible to deny receiving what they clearly received; they already claim to have lost two applications of mine despite me having signed confirmations that they receive them, so they basically misplaced stuff after delivery)

Today I formally lodged/filed the papers with the High Court. Brett Wilson LLP receives a physical copy. It was desirably time, with a draft having been circulated a month ago (as required and within all the specified deadlines; Garrett and Graveley both failed to meet deadlines in the past and they do not attend their hearings, ever).

Garrett, in absentia, keeps making "offers". As for Graveley, he makes "extremely generous" (according to him) "offers" after repeatedly begging. Similar tactics.

This article is about a new/recent letter.

This one concerns not drunken Garrett^* but his litigation buddy, who was arrested in his dad's house, then charged, almost at the same time Garrett sent his first SLAPP (it all began 14 years ago, but legal threats began 5 years ago, as explained back in 2021).

Last month, just a couple of hours apart from trying to pester/vex a person who advised us on a pro bono basis (regarding Garrett), the hired guns of Garrett and his litigation buddy sent me a letter for Graveley (sometimes they get confused about who's who and they admitted this under sworn testimony 11 months ago). Well, the letter is a surprisingly short rant and an embarrassment accompanied by obvious and barely veiled threats. In a nutshell and in no particular order:

1. they go ad hominem, which means they try to create a distraction from their patently poor conduct in those two cases (Garrett's and his litigation buddy's)
2. they reply only to the defence statement
3. they act as if they don't know this is a matter for the Court to decide about, not for a firm connected to death threats sent my way to rule on
4. the response is shockingly terse, lacking in details, basically just two pages of text (and a token paragraph on a new page) without actual references to paragraphs and some insults thrown in along the way
5. it's a poorly formed statement, which does not address the counterclaim, which is clear, long and detailed; this can be interpreted as the counterclaim being potent
6. plenty of arrogant, patronising statements and presumption that an LIP is not able to defend, that is it virtually impermissible to do so, and rebuttals can be done by innuendo while trying to maintain the artificial posturing that there is no coordination across the two American men (they're not responding to any facts that do not suit their sinister agenda)
7. the letter ends with a threat disguised as advice
8. that's preceded by the same secret threats with more diplomatic language made directly over the years, among other forms of intimidatory attacks and obvious breaches of rules (they don't follow rules despite previously passing exams that assure the Court they're fully aware of these rules)
9. they dodge discussion/mention of prohibitive costs of such a case (the subject of another, ongoing Security For Costs application)
10. it's strategically timed: letter sent a few hours apart - 2.5 hours to be accurate (another 'miraculous' Garrett/Graveley crossover!) - from a wholly inappropriate communication by Mr. Wilson (as an individual) to the barrister who is on holiday and not to be contacted directly in such a fashion
11. during holidays they tried to get us to agree on things without access to legal advisors^**
12. the rude, combative communication style is part of a familiar pattern (some solicitors pointed out they're clearly bad mannered by British solicitors' standards)
13. Mr. Wilson keeps doing this, as he did exactly on the same month a year earlier, contacting Mark Lewis in person, directly, in an effort to manipulate him despite me being LIP (he typically hides behind a generic "BW" signature and/or his fall guy)
14. they did this two days ahead of the actual deadline; why sent early if not to overlap/coincide with the above-mentioned improper communication for another American client? (Not a coincidence)
15. they tried to trivialise the two claims being almost identical to the extent of 80% overlap - insulting the Court's intelligence and the integrity of the legal system
16. they offer inaccurate advice, which is more of the usual from this firm, sometimes misinterpreting (probably by intention, distorting perceptions and expectations) the latest Order and its true meaning

The bottom line is, the "hired guns" are not judges and they interfere with the work of judges by lying to them and asking them to repeat lies. █

____

^* Is Whiskey Matt on the wagon or off the wagon? "I have had too many drinks," he wrote yesterday, "ask me again in 12 hours..."

He should know, based on his spouse, that alcohol causes problems, it does not solve problems unless it's used to sanitise (he is again publicly advertising that he is drunk, later he shows that he likely works while drunk and being Irish is not an excuse). Graveley too has had serious problems with alcohol. Months ago Garrett said he was getting drunk with Microsoft people while working to undermine Linux with restricted boot. We'll let him run his mouth.

^** This is intentional, they just weaponise holidays and exploit absence of counsels. It is the same thing Sirius tried just weeks before we resigned (they wanted us to accept Android phones owned by the company and sign some agreements; we said we would need a lawyer to review such agreements first). All our colleagues were asked the same at the time.

Speaking of no access to counsel, the Mullenweg story continues to unearth more injustices. According to this report from Tedium, the people who canceled him like 'Linux' Foundation did Torvalds (in effect the same thing, a forced 'leave' to bypass the law and hijack the company/project) denied him access to a lawyer. This must have violated several principles/laws over Slack (why does this company even use such proprietary spyware?) and Tedium says that "Mullenweg still has a role on the board, but given that the board just removed him from the CEO role, something tells me that the only thing working in his favor there are Robert’s Rules of Order."