They Say I'm Mr. Bombastic
¿Qué? Is that a proper legal term?
Just over a year ago the Microsofters, who had long harassed and threatened me (using courts as "props"), sent claims not only my way and also my wife's way; we responded with lawsuits [1, 2].
They didn't take good lawyers. They already realise this.
What is their latest strategy?
Sending or flinging threats at me constantly (veiled combative language with ultimatums) and when I reply politely they say the problem is me. Unbelievable!
They engaged in extortion against me (the letter attached was shared here in redacted form back in February, they kept trying to hide this letter, perhaps realising they had done something wrong; I spoke to several well-known law firms which deem this letter extortionate and maybe illegal) and when I reacted to this extortion they said I was "bombastic", which is sheer projection.
You see, throwing threats at people is "polite". They're polite, just like their client:
If those people react to these threats, even in very polite terms (or words), that's not OK.
More interesting, however, was the silence on critical questions. That's not an accident. It already happened 3 or 4 times.
I take their repeated refusal to answer very key points (repeatedly even!) as: 1) acknowledgement that they lodged the second case to help a languishing first case; 2) acknowledgement they coordinate with two parties in two lawsuits how to attack my finances instead of actually winning a case, which means it is abusive litigation as per the SRA guidelines; 3) acknowledgement that the lawyer who opened both cases is indeed leaving the firm (one can imagine why).
All 3 points are correct; we'll come to that later (another day).
It does not seem like they really know their clients. They also repeatedly refuse to say who funds the litigation (other than the employer at the time of the arrest, Microsoft). They are perfectly aware of this, but refuse to reply to polite questions about their clients, who are professionally and personally connected. Instead they throw insults at me. This cannot be a coincidence.
"Bombastic"? Who is being bombastic here? Sheer projection herein from a poor law firm [1, 2, 3] representing violent Americans from Microsoft while pretending this is perfectly OK as long as they get paid. █
Relevance:
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XXVII — The Future of OpenAI May Depend on the Fate of GitHub's Copilot in Court ($9 Billion in Damages)
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part IV — Mr. MobileCoin: From Mono to Plagiarism... and to Unprecedented GPL Violations at GitHub (Microsoft)
- Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part VIII — Mr. Graveley's Long Career Serving Microsoft's Agenda (Before Hiring by Microsoft to Work on GitHub's GPL Violations Machine)
Also see: When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent | Nat Friedman Had Left Microsoft GitHub Exactly One Week Before Matthew Garrett Sent His First SLAPP (Which Was an Empty Threat, He Was Abusing the Legal System of Another Continent to Terrorise Critics Who Had Just Unearthed Major Microsoft Scandals)