Using Courts for 'Revenge' is Always a Losing Strategy
Trying to cause someone you dislike to spend a lot of money [1, 2]
He found a poor (desperate for money) firm to taunt my family
This morning someone sent me this UK report from yesterday:
Was it stolen or copied? If there's a breach, then the issue is a breach, but unless the local/original was deleted (and no backups exist), "stolen" might be a distraction from the break-in, which is a very serious crime. No court would tolerate such a crime, which interferes with justice itself. Now imagine someone who openly and publicly boasts about breaking into devices (and also hijacks usernames and impersonates people in our IRC network) speaking of courts as if they're likely to find him innocent of harassment [1, 2]. That just won't happen. Imagine how the dialogue would go...
But then again the SLAPPer's intention isn't to win; it's meant to cost money to someone whom you don't like, and when you don't get your way, then a serial strangler from Microsoft comes "to the rescue"! You just can't make this stuff up. Who would resort to such desperate tactics? It is self-discrediting to say the least. Judging by one of his 3 (at least 3) strangling victims that we know about, the only "claim" here is something along the lines of, "Roy is speaking about my violence against women and that's against my privacy" (a defence to that is trivial; NGOs say the same - it's laughable). The Wayback Machine does not go far (recent) enough, but it's alleged that he already deleted embarrassing articles that he himself wrote (recognising they can be used to hurt him in courts). He implicitly admitted the violence in his own Web site!
Sometimes it makes you wonder if he's back to drugs and alcoholism, so he's just not thinking.
His litigation "copilot" (legal kamikaze) also boasts in public that he's drinking a lot of booze and states that most drugs should be legalised. No judge would take such people seriously. █