Illuminating Injustice is Critical When Reckless Microsofters and Law Firms Try to Silence Reporters of Violence Against Women
The "guns for hire" of the man we're suing [1, 2] sent me a letter yesterday. The "guns for hire" think it's not OK for me to write about what they're doing, working for Americans from Microsoft to demand takedown of factual reports like these (Microsoft GPL violations) because begging didn't work. These "guns for hire" are in debt (that's a fact), so they probably cannot be too picky with clients and cases. We already got told last year that those "guns for hire" were very notorious for taking on the most notorious "cases", even if there was no prospect of a win (what matters to these "guns for hire" is that they get paid).
A lot of what we've long said about patent trolls is applicable here.
So I want to clarify that I'm well within my right (and not running afoul of any rules) by explaining what goes on here. Suppressing publications from the UK, courtesy of a company in the US, is a problem. American (US) citizens filing cases in the UK, using the same law firm (even the same lawyer!), is not a coincidence. It should be noted the latter threat was being filed/sent less than a week before a key deadline of the first one (MJG), and only about a week after another attack by an associate of theirs on the webhost (I felt entirely abandoned as my calls were not answered and the same goes for many E-mails; but at the end the webhost sided with us!). They seem to be struggling with the facts and instead resort to sheer abuse by process. This is a coordinated effort to interfere with publication and with an ongoing case, even several.
Even the "guns for hire" realise that this is becoming a "risk factor" to them.
So just to clarify, on the same week 3 inter-connected online militants attacked me from several angles. No, they didn't get their way, but it was like a "denial of service" by misusing processes.
Is this the cost I must pay for defending women? Then so be it. █