10-Step Strategy to Get BRETT WILSON LLP ("Gun for Hire"), Microsoft's Serial Strangler, and the Serial Defamer to Compensate Techrights and Tux Machines for Years of SLAPPs and Abusive Litigation
"Gun for hire" is the term colloquially used to describe misuse of a legal licence for abusive litigation
"There is public concern - and we are concerned too - that solicitors and law firms are pursuing a type of abusive litigation known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) on behalf of their clients. The key aim of a SLAPP is to prevent publication on matters of public importance such as academic research, whistleblowing, campaigning or investigative journalism. They are a threat to the rule of law, free speech and a free press. It is important that claimants can bring legitimate claims and for solicitors to act fearlessly in their interest. It is not in the public interest for false or misleading information to be needlessly published, and lawyers can have a legitimate role in encouraging journalists and others to make sure that what is published is legal and accurate. Yet this should never extend to abusing the litigation process, bringing meritless claims or threatening individuals with legal action with the sole objective of discouraging free speech." -Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), currently investigating BRETT WILSON LLP for acting as an overseas gun for hire for an American serial strangler from Microsoft
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) said that "Justice is Not Free. Quite the Contrary. Justice is Expensive."
Justice is also not fast. It takes patience. It can take time, sometimes years.
Techrights and Tux Machines have been subjected to a lot of abuse in recent years and there's no intention (nor need) to take anything down, even when there are repeated extortion attempts after repeated begging simply failed.
Several distinguished law firms that studied the SLAPPed told us that this is classic "extortion" and probably illegal. They also said this is abusive litigation (that's a formal term), resulting in not only fines but also, potentially, disbarment (of a firm or individuals in it; BRETT WILSON LLP hides staff names when communicating, probably by intention, maybe due to accountability fears or high staff turnover). In the UK the term "strike off" is more often used (it's used for a plethora of actions; disbarment applies to a Barrister). The same Solicitor and Barrister are involved in abusive litigation here, working on behalf of Microsofters in another continent while operating on shoestring budget (they're in deep debt and not much left in the bank) against a private person writing articles pro bono.
At the moment we're leveraging a strategy (not to be disclosed here, for tactical reasons) to hold accountable BRETT WILSON LLP ("Gun for Hire"), Microsoft's Serial Strangler, and the Serial Defamer [1, 2] for what they did to us. Being based in another continent or being a "limited liability" (LLC) outfit makes that harder in the financial sense (BRETT WILSON LLP can just file for Administration/Bankruptcy and then assert its officers cannot be held accountable as persons). We must ensure they can never do the same thing to anybody else ever again. We also intend to spend the next few years discussing how we can/should correct/amend UK libel law to prevent other people (from Microsoft and the lawless land of Donald Trump) pretending they can jam dockets with SLAPPs. The UK's libel law has already earned so much notoriety that other victims of it wrote to us and some famous journalists urged is to publicly explain what we had been subjected to. We need to ensure our story has enough impact to extend justice to all. British law must not become a "toy" of violent men from other countries. Malicious, nasty people deserve condemnation in the media; it's not harsh, it's just true. Societies and democracies are better off for truth.
Among the likely abuses of their clients (which merely got reported by us, as they should be): strangulation, embezzlement, harassment, defamation, and various cybercrimes.
Remember that they market themselves as "reputation management", which is nicer term than "reputation laundering", albeit effectively the same thing. They also did the same sort of SLAPPing to tax professionals who had exposed tax fraud/cheats [1, 2, 3], only a few months before picking on me and my wife (while misnaming her deliberately). The exact same lawyer did this not long after he had joined the firm. Did they hire for low standards, just like they choose their clients? There's no room or capacity for forgiveness here; enablers and protectors of crime need to be scuttled and pay up in full. It ended Discreet Law, this case is no better (except it deals with radical men who live in the US, not Russia).
Dropping the SLAPPs isn't enough. They must pay for what they did and learn a lesson they and others won't forget. If you get bullied by a bunch of thugs, begging them isn't going to work and telling them to go away won't solve the underlying issue. They and others might carry on doing the same to more feeble targets unless something at some level puts a permanent end to their capacities, enablers etc. If insane people cannot help their bad behaviour, which is a lot worse than toxic, locking them up might be the only remaining option. They can barely harass journalists when they're behind bars (the Microsoft strangler was after his arrest). █