When Abusive Law Firms (Working for Microsofters Against Us) Assert That Someone Writing in Social Media About Himself is Confidential Information
There was no reason to throw "GDPR" into 2 SLAPPs; they know it, but the goal was to increase the cost of a Defence and lessen the incentive to challenge the SLAPPs
Yesterday we wrote that the "UK High Court Blasts Brett Wilson LLP for Misusing "GDPR" After Failed Efforts to Censor Critics Using 'Libel' Claims", citing this very recent decision (uploaded a few days ago). We believe commenting on this astonishing development is imperative as it can spell the end of all the Microsoft SLAPPs against us (in one fell swoop). We also cited the article "Daily Mail Defeats [Brett Wilson LLP-represented] Green Industrialist's Abusive GDPR Claim". It said: "The publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper has defeated a [Brett Wilson LLP-represented] green energy tycoon's data protection claim after a court ruled on Monday that it was "unnecessary and oppressive" to pursue the allegation months after launching an unsuccessful libel claim over the same story." (URL with paywall: https://www.law360.com/articles/2350754/daily-mail-defeats-green-industrialist-s-abusive-gdpr-claim)
We generally do not comment on ongoing or impending proceedings (such as legal papers and inter partes communications) because it's common courtesy and good practice to keep separate what's said to the public and what's said to the Court. When we write about this in public it is because prominent journalists, who respect this site, read this site, and have been in good terms with me for decades urged me to make some information public. Mainly because: 1) it helps the general public understand what is happening; 2) it's common sense to oppose attacks on the media and do so also in the media (not just in courtrooms, where dockets can and sometimes do get misused; 3) this problem is common, so it's important for other reporters to understand what's at stake and also for us to generally describe the blueprint of these attacks, how to defend against them, etc.
From the decision uploaded this week to judiciary.uk we learn of a pattern of abusive litigation by Brett Wilson LLP. They keep doing it. They cannot help themselves. The SRA and RPC should know and do know. It'll impact their judgement, and NGOs' too.
A lot is about to change after this.
I can and will bring this up to Master Gidden next week. It's important to recognise and properly deal with repeat abusers, such as Brett Wilson LLP. Otherwise, they may find more victims, such as remaining British reporters whom some people from another continent wish to abuse "by process" (or abuse of process). Sometimes this is called harassment by process. █
