Informal Open Letter to the Lawyer of the Microsofters (on Who's Funding the SLAPPs Against Techrights)
Court cases tend to be a private matter to be dealt with "privately" or "in private", but public scrutiny is needed when court cases are misused to engage in harassment, not to pursue a legitimate case (or where they are filed to be "funny", according to the filer himself).
Since 2024 we've always attempted to keep the communications pertaining to the Court private, at the very least out of respect to the process. We'll maintain this policy. We also don't name the staff involved, except those whose names are in the firm's name anyway (the Partners).
This is written for transparency's sake, as the last thing they want right now is for the public to understand what they do behind the scenes. To be clear: They are still bullying my wife and I. Even in weekends. Their aim is not to win cases but to constantly threaten and harass me and my family. On behalf of crackpot clients and aggressive cranks, who clearly hate women and attack women (even my mom was targeted).
The chaining of SLAPPs was explained here months ago. When one meritless case grinds to a halt they start another one. Have Garrett and Graveley found a third claimant yet? This strategy of theirs is self-defeating. At this stage several Judges at the High Court can see what's really happening. British authorities also see what's happening. They don't like it.
Several high-level sources told me it seems clear a third party funds those SLAPPs (one of them said "Microsoft" explicitly), as there's no sane person would spend over a million dollars on lawyers against a couple that hasn't money to give anyway. It's like they pour out money into a river.
Weeks ago I began early steps towards a Security For Cost (S.F.C.) application. I gave the Microsofters' lawyer a chance to consider and respond to the S.F.C. query (those are the conventional protocols; application is a final resort), which is imperative for many reasons; my key point was, they prefer not to understand what's really happening here.
So to the lawyer I say, you never really checked where your clients' funds came from and you respond with anger and threats whenever asked about it. As I'm sure you're aware, as you are demonstrably familiar with this modus operandi, Hulk Hogan died days ago and financial backing from Thiel (to attack a publisher [1-6]; he utilised another person to do this for him) continued to haunt him to the grave. For Thiel, it continues to be a lingering liability/cost to his reputation.
I intend to fully pursue/chase/unmask the funding sources of the SLAPPs, then hold them accountable (which legally I can). Whenever I ask about the funding they try to change the subject and act all aggressive. They never ever produced any proof of the funding sources (even when repeatedly asked). "Please respond regarding costs," I was about to tell them. "We need to deal with one issue at a time."
Less than a day later they sent me a threat, on a Saturday, as they were already failing to fulfil Orders from a Judge or meet deadlines.
To the lawyer of the Microsofters, consider why women are fleeing your firm. My educated guess is, they too can see they're fronting for misogynists and choose not to participate anymore, not even for a salary. Reasonable women would not wish to work for a strangler of women (from the US) against British people, including women, like my wife. Cases like these make or break a firm. In this case, there is a whole lot of breakage and the company lost a lot of staff and assets after targeting my wife and I.
We are convinced that justice will prevail at the end. So far, judging by our experiences with Judges, they fully grasp what's going on and issue decisions accordingly. It's not cheap, but justice has no "price tag" on it. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
How Hulk Hogan destroyed Gawker — after tag teaming with Peter Thiel
The lawsuit, Bollea v. Gawker, ended in a $140 million judgment that bankrupted the site. It later emerged that tech billionaire Peter Thiel — whom Gawker had outed in 2007 — had secretly funded the legal assault.
-
Hulk Hogan's sex tape trial pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebs
Putting Gawker out of business, it also ensured Hogan, who died on Thursday at age 71, would have an indelible impact on media law.
Ironically, for the MAGA supporter, it would also unwittingly pave the way for Donald Trump's court cases against "fake news", including the Wall Street Journal and CBS.
-
‘Pretend Somebodies’
Hogan’s lawsuit is, obviously, a huge part of his legacy; the Gawker verdict was historic, and the chilling effect it engendered was, and likely remains, very real. Still, the suit might form a bigger part of Thiel’s obituary when that’s eventually written (assuming the cryogenics don’t work). And if Hogan hadn’t sued a news site out of existence, it seems likely to me that someone else would have—perhaps a different plaintiff against Gawker, bankrolled by Thiel. At the very least, Hogan didn’t invent this age of escalating press threats, even if he did come to embody it (and will surely continue to do so for generations of aspiring media lawyers).
-
How Kiwi billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit that bankrupted controversial US media company - NZ Herald
-
Hulk Hogan changed media forever with his Gawker lawsuit - Fast Company
Perhaps more shocking than the verdict itself, however, was the revelation of who paid for the lawsuit in the first place: Two months after the smoke cleared, Forbes reported that tech billionaire Peter Thiel had been bankrolling Bollea. The former PayPal Mafia member spent roughly $10 million on the lawsuit, apparently with the aim of destroying Gawker, as revenge for outing him as gay in a 2007 post.
-
Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom.
It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true.