SLAPP Censorship - Part 19 Out of 200: They Were Ill-prepared for Tough Questions in Cross-Examination
Very ill-prepared for the deteriorating situation caused by their clients' past behaviour towards many people, including high-profile figures who offered to testify (but it would be too expensive to do this; they used a Serial Strangler from Microsoft to drain our of legal budget)
Last night we reminded readers that third parties had funded the litigation against us and are likely still funding the aggression (as they're the only possible source of funding at this stage; Garrett ran out of money a very long time ago). They are scared that we'll tell our story for years to come. They know what they did last summer, even literally last summer. Malicious threats from burner accounts and threats to my family [1, 2] won't stop us writing, as we're in full compliance with the Court and our barrister has 1) said we should write about it; 2) said this is the most outrageous thing he dealt with (having done hundreds of cases).
American lawsuits with "forum shopping" can be treated as a matter of National Security (to the UK).
Like we said last night, the American litigant tried to settle at least 5 times, including at least twice during the trial, we assume in order to avoid discomfort (not to save costs, third parties were funding him anyway). They brought most of the office to the court, realising that their clients were a liability to the firm's already-flailing reputation [1, 2, 3] as they had indeed done some very bad things (not related to the claims at the trial). It later seemed apparent that he felt traumatised being grilled by me and then his barrister (both of us remember it like that, it's in the transcript regardless) sought 'damages' for having been humiliated by the formal process. He didn't want to be questioned under oath because he had plenty to hide. To be clear, the Judge said that I was courteous (it's in the Judgement), it's just the content of my questions which was stressful to the American, not the style. He gave away so many embarrassing things, at times unwittingly admitted that he and his lawyers (and barrister) had repeatedly lied to the Court and probably defamed me many times. I'm reminder of this today because of what happened in this American lawsuit (skip the first few minutes), where cops who sued for libel were in effect utterly humiliated in the witness box. The witness statements backfired on them. Heck, their entirely frivolous case only brought more attention to bad things they had done.
In our case, many things which came up in cross-examination is past abuses, both against us and against other people.
The following text was composed 2 years ago. It has aged reasonably well.
The Bigger Picture Is, He Has Provoked People and Stirred Up a Hornet's Nest
As victims of the Claimant come together and sort of unionise or join forces, that rattlesnake realises that karma is real (he said in 2023 that this was the year he might face consequences for his actions; this is included in the bundle of evidence). Like the final episode of Seinfeld (this may be a generation-specific cultural reference that might miss its mark; the final episode had all the stars arrested, as people they had mistreated for years testified in a trial against them), what happens here is, many victims of abuse start talking to each other, unified around a common theme. Then, quantity adds up and a pattern emerges.
As the wife (Second Defendant) puts it, since he lacks actually verifiable credentials and qualifications (he's a poser basically, having built and still building an image based on almost nothing), he's very conscious of his so-called 'reputation' - to the point of the irrational narcissism or to point of losing sight of others' (people who have actual reputation, built on solid ground, not impostering and blustering, as per the modus operandi or fakers, imposters or bluffers) and actively attacks other people in the most outrageous and reckless fashion. It's all about him, but he fails to see the double-standards. e.g. insinuating Richard Stallman is all sorts of horrible things he clearly is not. In case Richard Stallman (RMS) needs an introduction and the Claimant's false accusations need to be brought up, one can refer to many debunkings online and even an official site set up for this purpose; this can be lumped in within the context of a broader pattern of abuse; but all earlier in the document, not here at the end. The end is not the place for new material and this document deals with the Defendants rather than other victims.
One lady told us in August 2024, "I need to put you in touch with this guy that is interested in Matthew Garrett [...] Matthew Garrett has been targeting both of you."
Quite a few people came forward, saying they too had been victimised.
He tried to create for himself a reputation/image as protector of women etc. but it is he himself attacking them and abusing them for fun. In fact, he has built this false image (facade of a male feminist) out of destroying people. This does not and would not ever work, especially as he keeps picking on women for being women. In fact, he cannot sustain this image because it is built on bad faith and poorly set-out, false foundations. He has failed at it and now he projects that (he keeps projecting many other things) to others.
Put it another way, his very shallow mirage or illusion is being shattered by his very own words and this is something he is unable to cope with. So the inner conflict results in chaos. █