SLAPP Censorship - Part 23 Out of 200: We Were Right All Along (for 2 Years) About Third Party Funding and Willingness to 'Break the Bank' in Pursuit of "Revenge"
How much damage can a person do to oneself in pursuit of cover-up of legitimate technical concerns?
This morning we published a couple of short articles about law firms and their handling (or mishandling) of money. We brought this up because the SRA is back in the headlines this week. Today there's an article about misuse of money or rogue accounting in law firms.
Funding by our opponents was discussed internally 2 years ago. "Putting aside worries that some third party is funding this legal attack," I said, there are many other concerns. A year later it was openly and explicitly confirmed that third parties were, indeed, funding our opponents.
"This should not be brought up ... yet," said an associate in 2024. The issue was escalated to the Court in 2025 because there was a clear admission right from the horse's mouth. By summer of 2025 there had already been several special arrangements for third parties to fund very expensive litigation against us, volleying over 75 KG of legal papers into our place of residence. Since yesterday's article there has been silence, no pushback, probably because they realise that all this embarrassing information was a self-inflicted wound.
Another noteworthy aspect is health. Earlier this month our opponents openly confessed having problems with sleep - a hallmark of concerns about one's own actions. More so when they come to light and scrutiny. Sometimes it boils down to guilt and self-loathing.
In 2024 we moreover explained the following. (Old text below)
Why This is Concerning
There is another aspect, which may involve debt or "kamikaze"-style attacks.
The Claimant is in chronically bad health, with habitual emergency room (ER) visits. These are very notoriously expensive in the US (he writes about his severe health problems in public) and this extrapolated to further speculations. This can make him potentially more menacing, i.e. desperate and dangerous, as he's willing to exhaust his financial capacity and his time. He seems to have ample free time; barely employed, and neither coding nor writing, instead spending time and resources just seeking revenge to the extent feasible by means of SLAPP. He'd be willing to destroy his own finances just to make sure someone else does too.
His mental character (as noted before, this is a real issue which already involves seeking professional help; he openly admits this) further supports this concern. How to deal with scenarios like these is an open question. There are no provisions in law that can discriminate against or counteract a morbid mindset such as ability to represent oneself.
He has since then had a fallout in his family. It became a public conflict.
"Whether this is something for which there a specific legal term may depend on the country," an associate said, "but some people with mental conditions cannot appear in court, as they are considered unfit to do so."
In the trial he was hiding behind his barrister. When on the podium for cross-examination he was evasive and later on his barrister admitted that he had suffered stress in cross-examination (despite the Judge saying I was courteous all along).
The way I see it, we hardly deal with sane people here; they're projecting in anonymous (from burner accounts) E-mail threats. We'll carry on illuminating all those facts. █