SLAPP Censorship - Part 24 Out of 200: The Failed Effort by Brett Wilson LLP to Strike Out My Lawsuit and My Wife's Lawsuit Against Garrett (the Master Allowed Our Lawsuits to Proceed)
Also a document that covers the way Garrett was clearly hijacking the identity of another person in our IRC network; we'll soon show raw logs exposing his bad online behaviour in IRC (specifically impersonation).
In January 2025 a High Court Master (judge) dealt with a rather shallow (nitpicking) challenge to our counterclaim [1, 2] and requested documents - in some cases documents the requester already had. Our solicitor opined they were trying to drain out our funds (budget) by invoking processes that would be rather costly (in reality, Garrett ran out of money well before we did; it's just that he then sought help from other people [1, 2], which isn't illegal but is frowned upon as it renders him an instrument of censorship, i.e. they're instrumentalising him to try to punish us). It should be noted almost at the same time he brought the Serial Strangler from Microsoft to volley another lawsuit our way (we'll show the full timeline some time soon), then repeatedly lied to several judges about the coordination between them. So two Americans connected to Microsoft basically kept flinging more and more costs at us, collectively (both of them) attempting to settle (on censorship) at least half a dozen times throughout. Begging didn't work, so "generous" offers (threats!) were attempted instead. Why does our system even entertain people like Donald Trump attacking British publishers? It's already becoming a matter of national security and we've got some politicians involved. We now get to tell our story about what was done to us. It's well overdue.
It should again be noted that our barrister (originally from Ofcom) felt very strongly about these abusive cases (by men with a history of abuse) and said that after handling hundreds of cases this was the most outrageous one he ever dealt with and the clients of Brett Wilson LLP deserved absolutely nothing, not even injunctions. That's what he said.
Gaming the British legal system from America (even against my British wife) is a low blow and something that the British people ought to be fully aware of, more so knowing third parties (we assume rich Americans, not British people) funded this to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds (we can estimate these costs because they were legally required to disclose cost estimates as part of the process/protocol). Like the previous part showed, we've correctly predicted for 2 years already that third parties were funding this litigation, yet Brett Wilson LLP kept defaming me for saying this (they knew what I said was true, but they kept resorting to insulting, derogatory name-calling, as usual from such smug hired guns, who would do anything to bend/twist the law).
Anonymous threats to remove articles about Brett Wilson LLP (sent to me from burner accounts) merely embolden us and vindicate us. Is this a law firm or an underworld in "law firm" clothing? Are we meant to keep silent about very clear injustice just because we receive threats from those too conscious of their precious brand?
Today we present our barrister's response to requests the Americans made [PDF]. This isn't secret, it's a document one can retrieve, but login barriers make it harder for most people to obtain. Litigation transparency is paramount when the aim is to illuminate abusive litigation and abusive American litigants who game the foreign system to censor people in another continent. They love choosing a plaintiff-friendly media/defamation tribunal, just like American patent trolls like to file patent lawsuits in Texas.
Notice how they abandoned some of their own requests, perhaps realising how foolish and self-defeating those vexing requests were. Sort of like they de facto abandoned meritless claims of UKGDPR violations [1, 2] (they themselves violated my own privacy and even family members').
To be clear, this is all in the record (proceedings) and is permissible to reproduce. If some law firm engages in abusive litigation for bad people from another continent and then tries to drown out the defendant with an additional abusive claim (connected to the first) to game the system and 'win' the case, it does not then follow that it should be permitted to hide its abuses. It's in the public interest and a matter of national security for people to witness this behaviour, which regulators and politicians observe and seek to eventually tackle. This particular law firm has long worked for highly corrupt and abusive companies from other continents to bully and silence whistleblowers. In order to tackle crime we need to explain how law firms which take thugs (one for example in prison for strangulation in Texas) as clients to bully those who merely report the facts, volleying over 75 KG of legal papers their way. This is lawfare. █