Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 9 Out of 200: 5RB Barrister Does Not Even Know the Name of His Own Client (That He Was Paid Well Over $200,000 to 'Speak' or 'Cover' for)
If you assault women in the United States, there's a barrister available for you in the UK (he has experience attacking women using copypasta and misusing "UKGDPR")
In the last part (or previous part as well as the one before it) we showed that the claims thrown at both my wife and I were weak and at times utterly baseless, e.g. claiming that public "tweet" are somehow secret or private information.
We also cited this article from last summer (high-profile case): UK High Court Blasts Brett Wilson LLP for Misusing "GDPR" After Failed Efforts to Censor Critics Using 'Libel' Claims
The way we interpret it, there is clear misuse of spurious claims as "fallback strategy" or "safety net" (time-wasting and cost-wasting at the very least) or "extra teeth" for an otherwise frivolous lawsuit that lack "real teeth" (basically lawfare, misuse of courts for purposes other than justice).
Both the law firm and this barrister (as shown above) are 'repeat abusers' or manipulators of this kind. UKGDPR is just something they "toss in" and even at trial they won't bother with it, as they know it would go nowhere.
It's time to put an end to this chronic abuse. At the very least we must talk about it in public. Without the public knowing, how can a resolution ever be reached?
As we'll show in a later (and very long) series, this barrister is not doing the job properly; he is just copy-pasting claims from one client to another, or basing them all on similar templates to do a lazy, shoddy, irresponsible job (not even getting critical names right!), then charging hundreds of thousands of pounds for it.
What we're dealing with here is a reckless industry that "prints money" and gives people a service no better than LLM slop (or just marginally better; they deliver more slowly than LLMs).
Worse yet, by doing this very sloppy job they are passing the burden to the other side for similarly outrageous money (to be spent rebutting boilerplate text), so they basically flood the system with toil which serves nobody (except themselves).
Later on they find the audacity to distract from their abuse, e.g. they resort to projecting by calling people "racist" (or similar things along the lines of discrimination) after their own side not only attacked women but also behaved in an overly racist way (that would make a fine nationalist, if not fined for nationalism/nativism).
What we deal with here are only men; they're working for men who strangle women and then acting all coy about it (in the barrister's case, maybe he'd make similar excuses had he been paid by war criminals to front for them).
What we see in Microsoft's Graveley & Garrett [1, 2] v Schestowitz & Schestowitz is a loss of morality and clear abuse of the British legal system on behalf of Americans. There's a history in that team that illuminates anti-metoo. This team profits from targeting vulnerable women and misogyny is a recurring theme.
To blindly accept excuses like "just doing my job here" is to basically give up on the justice system as a moral system, rendering it less legitimate (when the money becomes too strong to resist, even criminals' money).
My personal interpretation is that the barrister is a career-climbing "social climber" who lost sight of morality; like some people (greedy and immoral people of his generation), perhaps he is selfishly not recognising an obligation to women's rights and the safety of women. His clients are women-hostile incels with third-party funding (including salaries from Microsoft) and to them, the ability to attract American monopoly money is a badge of legitimacy. No wonder they're sued by their own clients [1, 2, 3].
More to the point though, the barrister clearly did a rushed job. Either that or he does not know the name of his client. Worse yet, what we saw in the Particulars of Claim suggest that the same is true for the law firm and the client. It's all in the name. Either Garrett does not know his own given name or he does not bother checking what he is signing (and this is the most important document, the most important of all and not that long). The text below is from 2 years ago:
V. With respect, regarding (7.4) in the Particulars of Claim, it seems like the law firm or barrister don't even know their client’s name. His name is not Michael. Maybe the barrister rushed through, or maybe he did not bother double-checking the claims. The quality of the document seems deficient and while it contains a statement of truth it contains blatant factual errors which could be easily averted. It bears the signature of their clients and, if he had bothered to check what he was signing, he would certainly notice that he is referred to as “Michael”, which is wrong. Such flukes may not be uncommon, but they serve to highlight low-quality work or severe budget constraints (or under-delivery despite a tall budget). As the Appendixes explain, there are strong reasons to believe this legal action is brought forth to harass the Defendants without an actual intent to full follow through the legal procedure. Checking the official Web page of the principal lawyer of the Claimant, he seems to be typically pursuing censorship through settlements rather than fully follow through the process. One legal advisor named the principal lawyer’s firm as somewhat of a well-known stain on the process facilitators, remarking on the principal lawyer’s firm that it will basically file papers, irrespective of the case’s merits (or chance of withstanding a court’s scrutiny) as long as the client pays them to do this. But still, getting the name of the Claimant right seems like very minimal an expectation, especially from the legal team of the Claimant, who signed the document and dated it. How could such a fundamental error slip through? Moreover, what does that tell us about the extensiveness of the process undertaken to draft and then finalise all those other claims in the Particulars of Claim? Was there ever any real expectation that the case will reach court hearing? Or rather, was it drafted to merely put pressure on the Defendants to settle for a sum slightly lower than it would take to draft a Defence, responding to many points and covering well over 200 pages? It seems like the latter motivation was seriously considered if not aimed for.
VI. There is a frequently-repeated assertion by the Claimant that people exposed to the articles are in an overlapping niche group; the same can be said about the First Defendant, who was lied about by the Claimant in public, targeting many of the same people in the same interest groups and professional domain, notable the technical field but not limited to it. For instance, not so long ago the Claimant insinuated that the First Defendant’s criticism of the programming framework Rust – criticism that dealt with both technical and legal aspects (there are many points to be made for each) – was in fact an act of intolerance, hate and bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the aim of the Claimant was to distract from legitimate concerns and incite people based on a complete falsehood. The First Defendant and the Second Defendant both have a right to respond, insofar as or to the extent of enlightening the people as to the source of long-running, unrelenting harassment. In respect to public disputes, not only the side which decides to deposit a fee with a court (in this case a court outside one’s country of residence) is entitled to a right to express oneself. This fundamental principle of law seems to entirely evade the Claimant’s mind, perhaps in part because the Claimant is bored – under-employed is not completely unemployed - and wishes to have some legal case as a “hobby” (he tactlessly calls this nitpicking expedition and legal case “funny”). The Claimant very well understands – as this was publicly signalled many times in the past – that the Defendants work over 100 hours a week (each!) on the sites and other tasks connected to the sites. The Claimant knows that starting legal action can slow them down considerably and gradually demoralise them, among others, irrespective of the actual merit/s of his claims. Also – perhaps most importantly - irrespective of the outcome, the sites may suffer in a number of ways, not limited to an otherwise-rapid pace of publication (speed counts a lot because news can age fast) as there are many maintenance-oriented tasks, even research and housekeeping. If the goal is to cause harm rather than to actually win a case, then it’s a factor that merits bringing into consideration, a facet that ought to be accounted for. █