Why We Publish Information About the SLAPPs (But Not About the Legal Process), an Abuse of Process by Americans Trying to Silence Critics of Their Employer, Microsoft
Tomorrow marks 5 months since we reported Brett Wilson LLP to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Unlike Action Fraud, the SRA actually deals with the complaint. It saw merit in it and escalated upwards.
We have credibility here. And having very high-profile legal team (solicitors and barrister) vouching for us, the complaint is taken seriously. As for Brett Wilson LLP, instead of accepting they don't have a case or have a feeble, meritless, hopeless case they just tried to attack our legal budget and thus make the cost of representation too prohibitive. That much is very well documented. It's simple to demonstrate. Their name-calling only shows they have no counter-argument, just insults.
All along (so far) we've been respecting the courts' expectations if not demands while at the same time facilitating a reasonable level of transparency. We don't share legal documents here, we just discuss their quantity. Before too long they will have sent us over 7 kilograms of legal papers. That's not an indication of strong argument but an effort to compensate for a lack thereof. Because the argument is really very simple. It doesn't take thousands of pages to explain something simple.
We maintain our position that law should be exercised in the open, especially when lawfare is attempted and people use SLAPPs to attack the media in the UK. "After hearing submissions from Discreet Law and members of the media," a media report once said, a judge "ruled that the hearing should be conducted in private."
Discreet because it involved SLAPPs from Russia. Discreet Law rightly got dissolved after this.
In our case (not cases [1, 2, 3]), Judges are beginning to realise both 'cases' are conjoined and classic abuse of process done from another continent for a large company to gain. Making the public aware of this ought to be permissible, even encouraged (in the name of greater awareness). It seems clear third parties fund this. █