SLAPP Censorship - Part 26 Out of 200: Asking for Documents and Information You Already Have, Even Letters and E-mails That You Yourself Sent!
When you try to outspend the other side, then resort to borrowing money, seeking Microsoft firepower (salaries), and seeking "investment" in lawsuits (from rich and secret third parties)
Barristers are not cheap. A good, experienced barrister (who knows what he or she is doing) is expensive. Some charge over 700 US dollars per hour. So why did Matthew J. Garrett (hereon M.J.G.), who chose a junior (cheap) barrister [1, 2], ask us to prepare and send so much information that he already had (and his lawyers too have long had) or - worse yet - material that he himself had sent? Our barrister too was irritated by this - the same barrister who later told us we should write about what was done to us* (for the broader public to know; we now have politicians in the loop as it is a matter of national security, not just due to de facto back doors).
In the previous part we recalled the time M.J.G. got suspended in Twitter. We also reminded readers how he:
- Kept calling people "rapist" (like 100+ times in Twitter alone)
- Contacted these people's employers to say this to them (even contacted universities)
- Harassed colleagues of these people by publicly alleging that they "protected" a "rapist" (peer pressure by defaming peers is a very low blow, but not exactly atypical)
- Kept highlighting these people in Twitter, trying to "cancel" them
- Said that a US court deemed his spouse calling people "rapist" in public "was protected speech"
- Got called "rapist" by his own spouse several times in recent months
Sometimes people call out real rapists and they get attacked for it. It's about money and lawyers, not underlying facts.
He really does not want this information to come out, hence he tried to settle "out of court" (and in secret) several times - not to save costs but to save face - and nowadays he sends fairly radical threats to us, even to loved ones. Lately we've been receiving threats from burner accounts as well.
Those burner accounts specifically and unequivocally speak of Brett Wilson LLP, so we must deduce a connection exists. They try to hide what they did to us. They fear exposure because of chronic abuse of process, e.g. falsely alleging public data - sometimes published by oneself about oneself - is confidential [1, 2] (while they themselves dox relatives of mine and 'deadname' some). They - like others - don't get confidentiality - they think they're exempted from laws!
1.5 years ago the M.J.G. lawyers - or what was left of them (women leave; they're instruments of the men in charge and 100% of them are men) amid financial difficulties - asked us to provide information that they already had, expecting us to hire lawyers and barristers to send them things they neither needed nor lacked.
This is my response to them: (this was better formulated by our barrister some time later)
Them:
Under Paragraph 15.24 of the Defence and Counterclaim“The Claimant has sought to interfere with the First Defendant’s work by falsely representing complaints to the First Defendant’s webhost, including by creating an email account with the webhost's name in it to intimidate the webhost.”
Requests
6. Please state in relation to the alleged complaints made to the First Defendant’s webhost:
(a) the date(s) on which these complaints were made;
(b) the nature of the complaints made;
(c) the full facts and matters in support of the contention that the complaints are said to have been falsely represented; and
(d) the outcome of the complaints and/or referrals made.
(a) Requested previously by the solicitor of M.J.G. (request #3)
Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:01:25 +0100 mjg59-simplyhosting@srcf.ucam.org Simply Hosting & Servers Abuse Enquiry
Name: Matthew Garrett Email: mjg59-simplyhosting@srcf.ucam.org Telephone: +1 [redacted] Company name: Details: Hi,
The sites techrights.org and tuxmachines.org appear to be hosted on an IP address belonging to you ([IPofhost]). They contain multiple pages harassing me with untrue claims of criminal behaviour, including (but not limited to):
https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/11/Garrett_Committing_Crimes_Since_Last_Year.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/18/Matthew_J_Garrett_Article_Number_Two.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/21/another_blog_post_by_rianne.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/27/Matthew_J_Garrett_the_Serial_Liar_Who_Keeps_Abusing_Me_Online.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/29/rianne_fifth_blog_post.shtml
http://techrights.org/o/2023/07/30/secure-boot-made-by-crackhead/ https://techrights.org/o/2023/07/30/extreme-misogyny-mjg/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/04/gnu-and-linux-mole/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/11/matthew-j-garrett-tor/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/11/another-campaign-of-mass-defamation-by-matthew-j-garrett/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/18/the-axe-man/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/21/poor-shaming-by-mjg/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/22/matthew-j-garrett-antisemitism/ https://techrights.org/o/2023/08/27/unmasked-tarred-and-feathered/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/29/video-on-year-long-online-abusers/ http://techrights.org/o/2023/08/30/mjg59-slapp/
This is libellous material intended to harass me, and appears to be in violation of section 6.3 of your terms of service.
The date and a lot more can be seen above. It should be noted that this is an E-mail sent by M.J.G., so he is fully aware of the date and contents. Why request this from us???
(b) Please see above. There were no claims at the time, he just tells the host he does not like some pages about him or pages that mention him by name. That’s all. The ISPs and webhosts are well protected against these sorts of actions, which aren’t even a false DMCA takedown request but mere assertions about accuracy (no details provided at all).
(c) With a prior Webhost, a year earlier, a pre-action letter was uploaded by M.J.G. to M.J.G.’s personal site for the Webhost to see (this was done in the publicly logged IRC channel of Techrights, available for everybody to see). The Webhost then expressed fear (in person, to the First Defendant) of being implicated or made uncomfortably involved (because M.J.G. has a history of this kind). This was the purpose of the uploading and sharing of that pre-action letter, which was used or misrepresented as a “trophy” by which to discourage hosting the site. The site was hosted free of charge at the time, recognising the site’s importance and providing many services pro bono.
Sending a pre-action letter is not hard. Almost anyone can do that.
Its legal veracity did not seem to matter and as noted later on, this pre-action letter came months after Roy had publicly accused M.J.G. of defaming him and others. Roy published articles and videos to make that point. So the pre-action letter may be seen as a defensive move to invert the narrative, portraying the serial defamer (M.J.G.) as the victim of people he had already harassed and defamed for years. Examples of the harassing actions will be detailed later and the common pattern (or overlap) can be observed therein.
(d) M.J.G.’s complaint was promptly discarded and thrown out. The corresponding ticket was closed. Techrights remains with the same Webhost and recently paid upfront for hosting until almost 2026.
M.J.G. is fully aware of this outcome. After all, his complaint was closed about 14.5 months ago. Why ask us about it?
The text above is from 2024. It has aged reasonably well. It remains unedited, 100% unaltered.
In the future we'll show more conniving and conspiring against the Webhost - same company I've relied on for 22 years. This wasn't the end of it. Coinciding with the above the Webhost was contacted once again (September 2024, only 1-2 weeks after we had filed counterclaims [1, 2]); later the reporter - a serial defamer - sent E-mails about it to M.J.G., based on the disclosures of M.J.G. Within weeks - after he was liaising with a serial strangler from Microsoft - another lawsuit got filed from America using the exact same legal team that months later got sued by its own clients [1, 2, 3]. Sometimes bad lawyers find karma.
Some people have plenty to hide ** and they insist on throwing money at the problem*** instead of correcting their behaviour. █
____
* Our barrister was livid and said that after doing hundreds of legal cases he never saw a claim so ludicrous and he said they deserved none of the things which they asked for. We're now speaking about what happened as it's a matter of public interest (the biggest culprits try to obstruct a much-needed reform). As barristers are expensive and M.J.G. did his best to increase our costs (even collaborated with other Americans on litigation and raised money from third parties) we were prevented from presenting evidence on the days of the trial (which saw cases de facto consolidated) and, as the Judge said in her decision, we had no witness statements on financial grounds (it's expensive to bring in witnesses, who need a barrister to check their statements and guard them). Unlike M.J.G. et al, we did not spend like a million dollars on lawyers and barristers (yes, plural; the metadata exposes several, as last noted 4 days ago). We sent them at most 2 KG of legal papers; they sent us over 75 KG of legal papers. We are locals, they're Americans operating via hired guns (acting as unscrupulous proxies with heavy debt).
** If you spend several decades publicly attacking people - often defaming them [1, 2] - while making allusions to violent fetishes, throwing rocks/stones in a glass house isn't in your best interest (or anybody's). It's undesirable.
*** Tasteless 'humour' ages poorly. Trying to hide what you said is not easy. Trying to drain out your "opponent's" budget is a tactic:
"She was further ordered to pay more than £1m in costs," as Wikipedia puts it, in a case where "Cadwalladr was ordered by the court to pay Banks £35,000 in damages by 12 May 2023." (So the costs are like 30 times higher than the alleged damages)