Contemptuous Law Firm Accusing Others of Contempt of Court
"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."
Contentious issues or pertinent (finer) details about Contempt of Court aren't known to many. Almost anybody out there, except the few lawyers who dealt with such procedures or those who saw them directly (firsthand), barely knows how that stuff works. In my experience (reaching out to 100+ law firms), many lawyers never did that and even some judges lack experience/literacy at it. It's the exception, not the norm.
In the High Court, a full Contempt of Court procedure can cost the applicant (the one issuing an application of contempt) hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's even higher if one adds "external" costs.
On May 10 (5 months ago on this date, October 10) I gave a list of a dozen examples of Brett Wilson LLP and/or its clients being in breach of some kind, including contempt of court (in my personal assessment).
2 days ago I revisited the subject because of further (new) examples. Ahead of the latest hearing I noticed another breach of Civil Procedure Rules and took note of it here. Days ago I mentioned how a more serious breach happened, as Garrett was trying to gloat about an unsealed draft regarding a hearing he chose not to even attend.
In addition to this, quoting from May:
- Garrett's lawyers may have engaged in and further facilitated contempt of court
- Graveley's lawyers may have engaged in and further facilitated contempt of court
- Garrett may have lied to the Court (possible perjury) over the source of funding for his lawsuit
- Garrett lied about his lawsuit [not] being connected to Graveley's
- Graveley lied about his lawsuit being [not] connected to Garrett's (Garrett was forced to admit this at risk of perjury after he had sworn on the Bible and after being evasive to no avail)
- The Garrett and Graveley cases are just a giant copy-paste (will be reported to BSB in due course), transcripts show they were also coordinated in tandem; Court staff has apparently already decided to treat these as conjoined, based on updates since 2025; to make matters worse, a few weeks ago Brett Wilson LLP foolishly sent a message to the Court only reaffirming this further - they are doing a "tag-team" with those two people and less than 2 days before a Garrett Hearing they played the Graveley pawn once again, only to receive the cold shoulder from the Court (in cross-examination they admitted they had lost track of who's who and made embarrassing errors).
- Various filings contain false statements (which their authors, including Garrett, know to be false)
- The lawyers of Garrett and Graveley breached rules to game the system and "get ahead"
- Someone connected to the law firm of Garrett and Graveley (if not Garrett or Graveley themselves; they need to decide who) sent threats from burner accounts. Those were deemed a "threat to kill" by GMP (Greater Manchester Police) and are still actively investigated.
- Garrett decided to repeatedly dox relatives of mine because he wasn't happy with the outcome.
- If that's not bad enough, at almost the exact same time I got added to a hitlist (potential violent harm) and it seems highly plausible that a friend of Garrett did this (if not Garrett himself)
- None of the above is funny, but Garrett continues to use foul language in public, set aside violent rhetoric
It's not a complete list.
Keeping a running tally can help with the Court of Appeal. There's a lot of projection going on while the system is being cheated at every turn.
This is something that began 14+ years ago because I opposed back doors in Linux. This is lawfare.
"Don't worry, you have the truth on your side" say people who naively assume that the other side's lawyers don't lie, won't lie, and cannot lie. If nobody holds them accountable, lying becomes their obligation to their clients. █