Microsofters Issuing Threats to Microsoft Critics Who Blog About Microsoft
This past Friday at 4PM the Microsofters were leaking out the trial information to Microsoft, which pays for the SLAPPs through salaries (the serial strangler from Microsoft) because there's a crisis at the company and there's incriminating stuff they wish to hide.
So far we see that their "legal strategy" revolves around trying to discredit people like Theodore Ts'o and Richard Stallman as a ludicrous distraction tactic (distracting from their own despicable behaviour [1, 2] by trying to project guilt).
In the article published yesterday we showed one of many failed efforts to deplatform this Web site (they tried again and recently as months ago; of course that failed and it'll backfire when we finally get around to writing about it) and then there were also threats issued subtly or explicitly against people who had been actively in our IRC network, including Ryan, e.g.:
Query about poster on your website
Hi Roy,
https://techrights.org/o/2023/07/30/matthew-garrett-collaborator-and-conference-pervert/ is a post on your website that contains defamatory claims about me. Under section 5 of the defamation act of 2013, you are not liable if someone else posted this. However, if you did not post it, you are required to provide me with the details required to contact the individual who did post it - therefore, within the next 48 hours, you are required to provide me with the name and contact details of the individual who did post it, since the available details do not provide enough information for me to bring action against the poster. Failing to do so would result in you being liable for the content the section 5 of the defamation act of 2013.
The post in question is allegedly posted by "Ryan", and includes the assertion that "His latest antics are to set up sockpuppet accounts and repeatedly post about being a “dope dealing n******”". This statement is untrue and unsupportable. It falsely asserts that I have set up sockpuppet accounts, and falsely asserts that I have posted about dealing drugs while using racist terms. Providing me with the poster's name and email address is sufficient to satisfy your obligations under the law.
Failure to provide me with this information will, under section 5 of the defamation act of 2013, prevent you from asserting a defence that you did not post this defamatory content. In the event that you do not feel that this is not a compliant notice, section 4 of the defamtion (operators of websites) regulations of 2013 require you to notify me of which requirements have not been met.
You may contact me via email at mjg59@srcf.ucam.org.
Neil Brown told him to write this to me. He has since then deleted his tracks (purging posts that he had made publicly! Yes, some privacy "guru"!), but we captured the whole trail. "Neil spent several years as head of privacy for the UK operating company of a global communications provider," he says. He does not mention which one. He seems to be using a licence to basically engage in online censorship, even for despicable people, whom he advises over Signal. At the end, as in this case, who gets served? Not women, that's for sure (same as Brett Wilson LLP). They'd even attack gays in another continent (where homophobia is rampant). Stay classy. International Day Against Homophobia has just passed.
We already covered this in the past. This shows how wide a web these people are casting in their effort to censor critics. They keep issuing threats directly or via cheap lawyers, who apparently broke the law when they did so this year (they're under investigation for it and staff seems to be leaving the firm, perhaps fearing the loss of a licence to operate or the whole firm getting struck off). █
"One strategy that Microsoft has employed in the past is paying for the silence of people and companies. Charles Pancerzewski, formerly Microsoft’s chief auditor, became aware of Microsoft’s practice of carrying earnings from one accounting period into another, known as “managing earnings”. This practice smoothes reported revenue streams, increases share value, and misleads employees and shareholders. In addition to being unethical, it’s also illegal under U.S. Securities Law and violates Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (Fink).
-2002 story about Charles Pancerzewski, Microsoft