Brigading Against Women - Part XXII - The Lozza Problem (in Length)
It all began in 2012 because I opposed back doors in Linux (while Garrett promoted them to cause further harm by Microsoft)
Previous Parts:
This series concerns what happened a couple of years ago and what I casually call "GGG" ("Restricted Boot" Garrett, "Microsoft Plagiarism" Graveley & "Gas The Jews" Lozza). It ("GGG") worked in tandem and we now know that the promoter of Microsoft back doors (updated every 12 hours), Garrett, not only collaborated with Lozza (they're still openly talking these days) but had also collaborated with Graveley after my wife and I sued him (see this timeline). Garrett seems to believe that the legal system in another continent (Garrett has been in the US since 2009) is "funny", so why not "stack the docket" with an old GNOME/Microsoft buddy? Why not shower several webhosts with complaints in tandem/parallel with Lozza? Why not work with misogynists who would gladly defame the spouse for a fee?
When I interrogated Garrett (he chose to swear on the Bible, so he becomes religious only the moment that suits him) last October he admitted he did similar things to other sites; he could not even remember how many times he had done so. The morning after (literally the morning after) his barrister said he found this interrogation traumatising enough that he wanted to be compensated for it. The judge, however, insisted that I was courteous (in her decision) and moreover added that Garrett's case was a waste of the Court's money.
Speaking of money, Garrett could never afford this lawsuit and he would be evicted if not for third parties and/or CFA. As of now, his Microsoft litigation buddy (double-dipping the Court's docket) has no income sources. The cases have been in effect hijacked by faceless "hired guns" who send death threats and defame me while lying to several judges. And speaking of death threats, almost exactly 2 years ago I spoke to the webhost about Lozza.
A 21-page PDF file was then sent to explain much-needed background and context, which we'll refer back to in the future.
My Legal RightsAtt.
Please note this is highly confidential for legal reasons (ongoing lawsuits that we filed). [1, 2]
Here is the full letter with only minor redactions:
Hi [redacted], Good Evening (or Monday Morning),
Preliminary Remarks
A. At the very core of this serious and complex matter, despite shallow and seemingly simplistic appearances (deliberate omissions and distortions in prior communications with you in 6 tickets noted, presumption of simplicity notwithstanding and not justified), herein we're not dealing with an ordinary actor; it would be an understatement to call this person an "Internet troll"; this person admitted trying to work for Microsoft and did in fact apply for a job at Microsoft, which Techrights has always openly and consistently opposed (more so than any other company). There's a 20-year history of Microsoft attempting to deplatform me, sometimes very directly (like phoning my boss at my job).
Motivations or perceived corporate backing aside, and attempting to refrain from an unnecessarily ad hominem angle (where it is clearly avoidable), issues of substance, facts and law shall be prioritised herein. Wrapping one's head around it requires care and patience. There are sadly no shortcuts, but references will be made to official documents where possible (instead of repetition thereof). This communication is as concise as can be given its unavoidably ample scope and it is wholly sincere (the communication from beginning to end). From a legal standpoint, consider it signed with a statement of truth.
B. The actor does not operate or act in good faith, to say the very least. It is an actor who is eager to hide a truly embarrassing past, including a long history of online abuse, substance abuse, and several children from several different women (not the wife, who Lozza is divorced from). That's according to Lozza, it is not the subject of mere speculation.
Publicly stated (in public postings) past is not privileged information. The statements made here are factual and in the public domain, as Lozza spoke about these things openly. Protecting oneself from embarrassment is not a legal right; it is a rare privilege, as anyone with common sense is aware. Protecting oneself from criticism is the power of monarchs.
Lozza is not attempting to protect a reputation but to attack a person (and his family, even elderly people with cancer!), who merely responded to illegal activities and defamatory provocations by Lozza. That's not the first cluster of attacks of their kind; Lozza has a long history doing this to people. Examples go more than 14 years back!
Taking anything from this person (including this latest assault) with a grain of salt is imperative as the person admitted (on the legal record) having cannabis-induced psychosis or paranoia. If facts and statements of truth matter, not false statements, nothing should be taken from Lozza at face value. Lozza has repeatedly made false statements, even to the state, and dared to falsify addresses too (more on that later).
C. This actor is extremely unreliable for a number of other reasons, including impersonation and hallucinations (Lozza truly believes Neanderthals live underground and some people are "reptilians"). Hard drug use and long history of being banned from all sorts of networks and places for really bad behaviour should be testament to the fact that many platforms online share our assessment. None of this is harmless; a lot of this is very dangerous but psychiatric wards are more expensive than medical vigilance. Over the years (more than a decade) we had to ban Lozza many times. More on that later.
In the past few months Lozza created several accounts in several social media platforms bearing my own name and my picture, in effect impersonating to harass my family, deceive people who know me, and even post illegal stuff (e.g. glorification of terrorism) using my name, photo etc. This must not be taken lightly and it is very recent (persisting as lately as days ago).
Several other cybercrimes were committed weeks ago and registered with British Police. The matter is being taken very seriously as my mother, my wife and even my siblings got targeted. The focus seems to be on attacking females. Lozza had police cases opened by other members of my family. British Police can tell you a lot more. The matter was already escalated a number of times, but due to Lozza being autistic (Lozza admits this; it's not cheap shots or name-calling) and based in another continent, America, there are limits to what can be done in the relatively traditional routes and timescales. Conversely, dealing with such abuse domestically is trivial. An arrest would probably precede any attempt to contract a webhost for censorship. These aren't just loopholes or 'hacks'; this is abuse or misuse of the system which presumes good faith, sincerity, and sobriety.
D. Contrariwise, or unlike Lozza, we run a left-leaning and progressive group/network of sites that focuses only on technology but when meritlessly attacked by people would protect itself from these vicious attacks, no matter how they're conveniently masqueraded. This very seldom happens. The person who contacted you is a longtime racist fanatic, no matter how that's being "sold" (for optics, for deceit), deemed too extremist even for Twitter (and accordingly banned, also banned from other online platforms).
The sites you speak of are run by a large group of volunteers from all around the world, they're not reducible to one person or a simple feud because they have a very, very long tradition and good reputation. The posts vaguely alluded to constitute perhaps 0.01% of the material in those sites. Probably a lot less.
E. You are disingenuously being approached for perceived mediation by the aggressive party, which initiated the aggression and looks to make this aggression a pastime or "hobby". It's not a case of tit-for-tat but a campaign of abuse that has gone on for over a decade; you're just the last perceived or conceivable target to deceive and manipulate (so as to trick you to cooperate in the harassment against me, my wife, my parents, employer and so on).
To listen to this party would be awarding - or akin to gifting - the people who broke the law or giving them a power to 'boss' (or de facto acting as editorial controllers of) their victims, even women who did not play any role and were just being picked on for being women, which is absurd and offensive to the victims (it's important to emphasise the crime and abuse predate all those articles that document these).
In case you wish to explore the matter and its true severity, check Crime Reference (British Police) CRI/06A1/0017970/24 (2024). That's the one keeping track of Lozza's crimes against me (some are as recent as weeks ago, so it's not a finished problem but an ongoing one). There is a separate reference/crime (number as reference; meeting the threshold for opening a case) documenting Lozza's crimes against my wife, who would have to communicate separately shall that be needed as she is eager to elaborate but this document is strictly from me, not her.
F. Lozza repeatedly opened abusive, misleading, threatening (even using sock-puppet accounts!) reports with you, the webhost. All of them were closed, including the ones filed with sock-puppet (or sockpuppet) accounts. Please see
SAAT: #26080
This was filed by a sockpuppet, created and controlled by Lozza. We know this because this E-mail address was also used for other abuse by Lozza, even against other people (some reported it was sending them borderline death threats). So be aware that an account that has done illegal things, impersonated people and sought to menace individuals is the one sending you reports and we know for sure that it is Lozza's account.
I cordially ask what the policy is on obeying people who make threats to you from sockpuppet accounts and how it makes the company look, especially as a presumably robust platform for people who have exposed law-breaking for decades and have done this very many times, with recognition received in governments, mainstream press etc.
Lozza also repeatedly issued threats to the host, all of which were closed (you can see, as per the details)
SAAT: #26068 SAAT: #26385 SAAT: #26087 SAAT: #26073
So this is already the (at least) sixth time this person threatens the host, you, including using sockpuppet accounts to give a false impression of magnitude (that's probably also a breach of protocols on numerous levels).
I can get you in contact with British Police who can brief you on the crimes committed not only against me but also against my family by this individual. I cannot give you a complete list at this point for confidentiality reasons, including lawsuits we filed (and are strategically kept under the wraps at this point).
The above cases (SAAT: #26068, SAAT: #26385, SAAT: #26087, SAAT: #26073, SAAT: #26080) contain my lengthy responses; it is a 100% complete reproduction of what I told the webhost a few months ago or a year ago after failed attempts at censorship. I did not mention any names to the webhost, nor are any names mentioned in places where they're not needed as the facts speak for themselves, irrespective of opinions. I am fully, entirely aware that for you to examine 5 prior tickets would take considerable time, but the full magnitude and context must be critical-to-understand; for decisions to be made in a rush would be unfortunate, more so given the long history of the abuse by this person, including serious crimes.
G. There are ongoing lawsuits which we spent nearly [redacted] pounds (and many months) preparing and filing. It would be legally problematic to actually remove the material alluded to as that would constitute evidence tampering in a couple of lawsuits we filed at the High Court, in effect trying to trick (scare) the host into interfering, instrumentalising an unaware party by making pretenses about trying to make peace by "I delete mine, now you must delete yours" (truthful material about the actual perpetrator of the crimes, unlike the aforementioned fake blogs that claim to be of people who do not even exist!).
H. Regrettably, you are asking me to remove pages to appease someone who is still committing crimes against me, my wife, and my extended family. Extortion and coercion against the webhost isn't unprecedented (this is about the sixth time), just like doxing my family to their employers, committing cybercrimes over IRC and E-mail etc. You essentially ask us to edit pages that pertain to two ongoing lawsuits we filed with the High Court in September. Time constraints play a role here and it's possible that there is behind-the-scenes coordination that you're not aware of, hence I defer to my barrister and my wife's barrister (the lawyer might also might also be familiar with this legal tactic/manoeuvre).
I. The party you diligently listen to or try to appease is deliberately lying to you; they think they are being clever but only make their live harder by getting Crime Cases assigned to them, getting sued, getting negative publicity about their illegal deeds etc. What happened in this case (latest development) is only yet another time-wasting episode in a long saga and dealing with it in an ad hoc fashion would entail injustice, not justice. There is a proper route to be followed, even if it takes longer and is more expensive to various parties. Justice isn't free and it's not always quick.
J. I must again stress that we have legal rights - both as citizens and as clients - and we have a strong legal basis for not removing this material as that would constitute evidence tampering in open cases that we recently filed. We have reasons to believe or strongly suspect that you're being leveraged for a "legal hack" - in effect, you're being used to subvert justice (without being aware of it).
K. You may be feeling deterred or repeatedly discouraged by threats of harassment by process (or social engineering), but Lozza's complaint was thrown out some weeks ago by an institution Lozza lied to, putting a fake Canadian address to trick them into admitting an inadmissible 'case' (that should never have been filed; it was harassment by process, a classic example of that; there's a long-running saga there, with Lozza filing many frivolous 'cases' using two legal names and two genders, exploiting a zero-cost system to spawn "revenge" filings at no charge, only to see them all thrown out or "withdrawn" just before they're thrown out - a form of status manipulation).
L. Lozza has exhausted all means of trying to suppress factual information composed by the victims of the crimes, so emotional manipulation is again attempted, even though 5 cases were already closed by the host (and the facts have not changed since; nothing new happened except Lozza committing even more crimes against us).
It bears repeating.
Nothing has changed since these complaints were closed and self-censorship of "legalbeaver" is more about covering up what happened before, not paying respect to the victims. It would be ludicrous to assert otherwise.
M. We cannot - both on moral and on legal grounds - remove factual pages out of "Respect" for a person who fabricated people and created fake blogs about us, associating us with Unabomber, Nazis etc. Even creating fake accounts bearing my name, photos (and pictures of family members) and then engaging in actual crimes against us, as recently as weeks ago. Those crimes were usually not committed by sock-puppets of Lozza but by Lozza himself (directly, no pseudonyms); Lozza even boasted about these in public. It is really as bad as that sounds.
N. Legal breaches were reported (pro bono, a public service to all) by the sites we run, not - and not even once! - committed by them. Repeated complaints and threats are merely part of the harassment and the use of sock-puppets says a lot about disregard for the law. Asking for removal of evidence of criminal activity, bypassing due process by contracting webhosts, is yet more evidence of the abusive nature of all this.
O. From a public interest perspective, various rules also apply. These articles help protect other victims of the same person (who has already done this to them for at least 14 years). I sincerely believe your company should stand up for journalism and for your client, not thugs who threaten you based on distortion of facts and manifestly false information.
P. Regarding the webhost, I have been your hosting client for over 20 years (about 15 domains) and one site, tuxmachines.org, is over 20 years old. So is my personal site, schestowitz.com, which has been with you for over 20 years. The site is an avid recommendation source for Catalyst2. It was praised and also publicly endorsed by me in my personal site for about that long; it's hard to estimate how much money I brought the company Catalyst2, but I've probably paid the company - directly - the price of a car over the years. Never before have any of my sites been forced by any webhost to remove anything (a lot of is of high journalistic value), so it it ironic that the person who committed many crimes against us - with the deliberate aim of undermining the sites (Lozza admitted this in public!) - is the one attempting to be the first ever to do this, for more so - however ironically - attempting to remove documentation of that behaviour, twisting - inter alia - both laws and facts.
Q. I will soon (this coming Monday or Tuesday morning) report intimidation by proxy to the police, as it has part of a longstanding pattern which must be tackled (Lozza tries and fails all the time, also against other people).
R. Lozza has been doxing even the cops (!), not just us. Perhaps assuming that being autistic somehow makes it OK to do this, even to cops overseas. And this is somehow the person who now lectures you on "law" and demands removal without even citing relevant laws and instead publicly ridiculing law enforcers. More than 10 years ago Lozza attacked and harassed a cohost of my podcast, who was a cop, and even his father, a retired police chief, resulting in Lozza's permanent expulsion (even back then). Both the law enforcers and the courts are stacked against Lozza, based on direct experience (not mere experiments). You should consult them for further information rather than rely on self-aggrandising and delusional descriptions of oneself. Lozza got arrested; this is a matter of public record. This is a not person who respects the law. Online, using a real name, the person even advocates terrorism.
S. My family and I strongly encourage you to take the time required to properly understand the full context and what's at take, not leaning towards complying with mere requests from someone who literally eats insects (yes, there are severe mental problems), does hard drugs etc. Webhosts are the guardians of communications online, so they should patiently study how to govern the Web and not rush towards instant comfort/gratification/path of least resistance (or cost) instead of following the pertinent laws (and instead, acting out of sheer fear, as the person who pretends to be a victim moreover lies about qualifications and credentials - a longstanding pattern by the way).
Impulsive decisions can eternally damage reputation of webhosts, who rely on their reputation not only by blind compliance but also their defence of the legal process (including true due process), especially when clients' trust is at stake (in our case, over 20 years of trust being built, thoroughly established over the decades with the management of Catalyst2 knowing me in person and treating me as a valued customer).
T. We certainly need more time, which should be feasible. I must first speak to my lawyer and to my barrister (decades in Ofcom, very supportive of me and can attest to how we're the victims) about how to proceed with this as this can impact the lawsuits we filed last month and we need hosting that is not acting in this way, even if this web hosting served us well for over 20 years, including last year when your staff clearly realised what was going on and witnessed the sockpuppets it was dealing with (read: wasting time on).
U. I too, as a client as a technical journalist, have defensible rights that I am willing to assert in a principled fashion and, regardless, I can take all my domains elsewhere, even after 20+ years with the same host because a host that sides with a (literally) insect eater who unscrupulously attacks my mother, my wife, and issues death threats is not a host that I can rely on.
I genuinely mean it when I say that don't wish to sound like I'm threatening to leave (with refund for months paid in advance) because it would corrode the relationship with the webhost. I'm a person of long-term commitments, not flippant behaviour. Instead I wish to have a cordial, constructive dialogue. In fact, me and clients of mine have many sites with you, mostly in Catalyst2. It would be both a nuisance to you and to me if we have to move all those sites elsewhere and I'd like to avoid that. Catalyst2 has a very special place in my heart and I know the people there well (since I was a Ph.D. student).
V. In short, Lozza just keep barking (not biting) but still doing a lot of damage (noise) and wasting people's time because that unemployed person made it a hobby to abuse people online (for many years already). Terms of Service that contradict the activity of journalism or do not conform to underlying laws can be legally challenged and pursued on the basic of public interest, with the balance of probabilities typically leaning in favour of the public interest. In that view, the situation must be meticulously assessed or reassessed.
Further Statement of Facts
These are more minor notes of relevance, bringing into view more facts that are noteworthy.
0. I've sought some senior advice on this matter many times. Even though it is a weekend, which means access to lawyers is a lot harder, I've managed to understand the situation a lot better. I am still firm in my stance. I would like cordially explain essential background and provable facts. I have a long track record of insisting on hard facts, I never did any drugs, and I never had any trouble with the law.
1. I kept my promise to myself to move on and did not mention Lozza even once since months ago. Not in IRC chat, not in the site, and not anywhere online. I've stuck to my promise.
2. The harassment by Lozza against my wife continues this month (October), so something clearly isn't right, would you not agree? There is clearly a morbid obsessions that cannot be stopped by merely not mentioning the person.
3. The victims are being gagged by a serial abuser with the aid of misinformation told to perceived authorities. One side is prematurely presumed guilty without even hearing from it. The escalation process seems grotesquely imbalanced.
4. Lying to authorities (e.g. fabricating addresses to make the country "fit") is a crime, but if you lie to authorities in another country you can get away with it. You're being told lies, or things presented without any context, with the sole intent of further harassing, in this case by proxy.
5. The same has been done to the webhost, which I intend to show using my own experience; committing perjury and using sockpuppet accounts for Denial of Service attacks is illegal too. These are serious crimes. This will be reported again (to the cops) on Monday.
6. The 6 cases at the webhost were being opened by a foreign person (after both my wife and I had already opened cases at the police and made that publicly known) is just further example of the ongoing campaign of harassment and there is ample history to this (going back over a decade; I have video evidence and text evidence of this abuse directed at myself and people close to me). The clock did not start in recent months; Lozza had admired me online for many years and kept abusing me because I showed no romantic interest. Lozza occasionally did this publicly and there are many witnesses too. There is clearly some mental problem (other than the autism), which may help explain why my wife is also viciously targeted by Lozza.
7. This behaviour cannot be cured and it will persist until someone exposes what this behaviour is and how the abuse is done. Hence, reporting is essential herein. Feelings are a lesser aspect if the magnitude of the crime merits sufficient public awareness.
8. It should be stressed that this is an old modus operandi of abusing webhosts/clerks/cops (in numerous ways, including defamation and guilt trips, cop-shaming, sometimes with suicide as emotional blackmail) and misusing tribunals to fabricate threats and thus harass people. There is no actual court case against the webhost; it is theatrics. You are being misled. Hence the importance of illuminating the past, based on publicly accessible material from the government's own site. Nothing that I showed constituted "doxing" (ever, in my entire life). That's just another lie being repeated a lot. Technically, my wife and I were being doxed - just another example of narratives being grossly invented and inverted, painting the victims as the aggressors.
9. In this case, being on the wrong side of history means siding with serial abusers who attack women, commit numerous cybercrimes etc. There are now (in the past 2 days) more cybercrimes being committed as well as attacks on family members, including parents and siblings.
10. With respect, I believe you are being manipulated and are not willing to consider that possibility. I previously gave you, the webhost, two crime reference numbers that are deeply connected to your allocated/assigned case and I saw no evidence that you even looked them up and studied them. I had previously told you about those cases over the telephone (but I was away from the computer and didn't have the reference numbers available). Official documents can help a lot.
11. With all good intentions, as I have no doubt you seek to protect the online community and your clients, you unwittingly and maybe unwillingly entertain a person who attacks British women, based on lies, perjuries, and falsification of credentials. You help a person who still posts antisemitic material online all the time (deemed too extreme by Twitter and this is why Lozza was banned by Twitter a decade ago). Harassment against people (of the nature committed by Lozza) is a hate crime, as are the hate crimes reported by my wife Rianne last summer.
12. Every single month since August, i.e. 3 month in a row, the abuse persists. Under what British law is there a legal obligation to keep quiet about it?
13. Lozza's obsession with me goes back to 2010 and abuse against myself and associates (now my family too) goes that far back. Why are things that happened 10+ years ago considered irrelevant when they are extremely relevant to the present situation? Lozza has a history of abusing British cops (who then took action against him) and even - inter alia - abusing their parents who are retired police chiefs, resorting to crackpot conspiracy theory, calling them names and defaming them. Being stoned (Lozza openly admitted doing hard drugs; it's in the public domain) is not a valid excuse, but even in recent times Lozza tried using drug-induced hallucinations as an excuse.
14. Lozza admitted applying for a job at Microsoft (again, this is in the public domain) and is more concerned about what I wrote about Microsoft; being a catspaw by making it personal and then framing it as a personal dispute is why a proper legal review of the events, including crime references, is imperative. Lozza is collaborating with Microsoft associates. We have evidence of that. Microsoft has long attempted to interfere with Techrights publications, and always by proxy. There is very hard, concrete proof of all this.
Request for Information (Legal)
15. Is there any legal ground/solid basis upon which I am prevented from discussing the (in effect) person and what this person did? My wife also wrote articles about the crimes she had endured. Preventing this would be morally problematic. It seems very ad hoc and not grounded in any pertinent law.
16. Which section of the hosting ToS am I at risk of violating? I must know so that I can verify. I am legally entitled to be told this.
17. There was - only 9 months ago - press coverage about a case of British police paying out someone for misapplying laws: https://reason.com/2024/01/26/brickbat-thought-crime-2/
The short story is, false arrest, detained man later got compensated. This is very recent. Getting the legal basis right is critical. It's better to act slowly and correctly then fast and incorrectly.
My Personal Views
Long story short, from a legal perspective, if someone from another continent or even the same country/ies does something truly horrible and even illegal stuff to your and your family for years, merely writing what this person did and presenting evidence isn't illegal; in fact it is something encouraged especially when there's a long track record of the person doing the same to other people, especially people residing in other countries (where holding someone accountable is a lot harder).
This person is trying to get low-cost or zero-cost 'revenge' by misusing public services both at home and abroad. The publicly available track record shows this clearly and officially (in official documents).
Ways Forward
Techrights exposed many scandals for two decades, reaching major publications as testament of its positive impact.
Tomorrow I plan to publish articles for whistleblowers from the European Patent Office, as I have done for many years, exposing actual corruption that the press follows Techrights to understand and a recent scandal is connected to Microsoft.
Tomorrow I also wish to publish an article that does not name anybody and is 100% factual. It's about a message that does not name anyone and was respected by the legal team almost exactly 12 months ago. The facts have not changed since then, so what has? It was received and honoured by my webhost, which was able to verify things and sided with me all along.
If you believe publishing this in violation of a ToS or some British law, please state which exact law and section this would violate so I can seek further legal advice. Precision matters here as one-word replies are very board and vague. I've long written article in which I insist on respecting constitutions and laws, naming the legal basis of things rather than blindly accepting ad hoc judgments (verbal or not even that). Society is getting further detached over time from the Rule of Law and for democracy to function we must examine ways to restore lawfulness.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The next few parts will show how a resolution was reached with only a few token redactions. No pages were removed. █