SLAPP Censorship - Part 33 Out of 200: Garrett Sued by My Wife and I, Then His Microsoft Acquaintance Files Another Lawsuit and Our Webhost Receives Legal Threats Too
Today we also show how our solicitor Mark Lewis responded to it
As noted in the previous part, 11 days from now the UK Government will discuss the SRA's (Solicitors Regulation Authority) "recent regulatory failures..."
After we had escalated to our politicians [1, 2] they told us they would raise the matter with some of the highest top-level officials and the SRA was soon under fire [1, 2]. They didn't like what happened in Microsoft's Graveley & Garrett [1, 2] v Schestowitz & Schestowitz for many reasons, including the idea that our legal system now serves Americans with monopoly (or monopolists') money. It is moreover an affront to women and we should prioritise victims and reporters, not perpetrators who spend a lot of money on lawyers (to gag victims and reporters).
In a nutshell, what happened to us and eventually resulted in further appeal preparations (it's not cheap!) was further abuse of the system in an effort to silence us (after the case was over), culminating in threats sent to us from burner accounts. Resorting to deliberate misunderstanding of technical things and conflation of private communications with "Publications", there was an attempt to 'kill' past articles and curb future articles, in the process doxing relatives of ours, trying to deplatform us, and all sorts of social engineering attacks. These acts of contempt (lies told, rules breached, statement of truth on false statements, their client belittling the court and the Justice in social media) and abuse of process were not unprecedented. This was just more of the same. The law firm wants to hide from the public what it did to us, what the Americans did to women (while paying to law firm to gag me after begging failed), and prevent me from covering 'secure' boot issues (which is what their client got paid to promote 14 years ago). In the process they picked on my wife, they tried to leverage British taxpayers' money (despite being American) for their own entertainment, and their American clients tried to put us in prison even through they themselves were in prison and days ago one person suggested they deserve years in prison for what the spouse alleges. It later became apparent that some secret rich people funded their litigation against us. They must have spent close to a million dollars at this stage - money that they don't even have (Garrett was struggling to pay his lawyers a long time ago). His attacks on me began when he worked for Red Hat and I rightly criticised Red Hat as a company for terrible things it did at the time.
The attacks on me came from several directions at strategic times.
A lot of this was foreseen and explained by me 2 years ago. I told my barrister, who drafted our counterclaims, that they opened a new case with the purpose of depleting our legal budget, in effect gaming the British system twice from the United States of America (by proxy). From 2024: (with some foresight later confirmed by Garrett because he swore on the Bible and got grilled by me for over a day)
Right now we know that M.J.G.’s (Garrett) lawyer is receiving a lot of money from a “former” Microsoft employee, who is only one degree or two degrees of separation from M.J.G. He made it known in October 2024. The timing of that was clearly strategic, days apart from a very key date. The motivation of efforts to compel coverage of costs (passage of financial burden) moreover puts in doubt whether the Plaintiff can still afford to pour money into the case which he started and already tried to get out of thrice (offering settlement, which we declined every time). It can be interpreted as tactical harassment and psychological manipulation – in effect bringing in a man who assaulted women (and got arrested for it!) to issue threats to someone who merely wrote about it more than 3 years earlier.
The pre-action letter was sent by E-mail from the exact same lawyer (“Our client: Balabhadra Graveley”) on 23/10/2024. It came by registered post a couple of days later (25/10/2024). “Order by Master” in the M.J.G. case is dated 25/10/2024. This is not a coincidence.
M.J.G. and his lawyer now rely on a person from Microsoft, who got arrested for strangling women, to try to frighten the other side and waste time/money. Balabhadra Graveley is American, not even British, and he lacks standing in court. Months have passed and no actual claims have been filed, however the lawyer sent a draft PDF to make it look like claims were filed with a sum drafted at over 200,000 pounds (this didn’t even go through a court, he’s apparently sending draft PDF of court forms to scare people).
At this stage, with premature requests for costs by the person who initiated this whole lawsuit, it seems like the party running out of funds is the same one that already tried to get out of the lawsuit (settlement offered 3 times and declined by us as a matter of principle).
The above puts in a bad light the practices and ethics of the law firm, whose legal licence seems to be misused or abused, using one person to cover up for an actual client and misappropriating PDF court forms that are merely digital drafts to mislead the recipient (the communication is always being sent to Patron Law only why was this particular communication sent to Roy’s personal inbox, in an unusual change, rather than Roy’s legal representative?).
This is of course a rhetorical question.
Those issues must be raised because those two people are connected (in many ways!) and know each other. These practices put in doubt the sincerity of the filer.
The response from Patron Law to this pre-action letter:
Dear Brett Wilson,Roy Schestowitz v Balabhadra Graveley
We refer to your letter of 23 October 2024 which you copied to us. We confirm that we are instructed.
It seems that the inclusion of a draft claim form is designed to reinforce the seriousness of your client's threat to sue. Leaving aside the questions of jurisdiction and security for costs at this stage, it seems that the threat is strategic to add to your other client's claim.
It would be too far fetched to believe that it was just coincidental that two individuals living in different US states would both decide to proceed against an individual in Manchester UK and instruct the same law firm in England.
As with the other case it seems that your instructions are limited. We do not ask you to waive privilege, we simply suggest that you seek instructions from your client about the details of his arrest in Texas.
We do not waive the jurisdictional issues in this country or demands for security for costs. It is up to your client if he wishes to pursue a claim, if he does it will be defended.
Yours faithfully,
PATRON LAW
Their lawyer responded coyly without addressing even one single point of the above. The integrity of this aggressive law firm should be in doubt; why did they take on such a case in the first place? Because no other law firm would? In the words of M.J.G. himself, this lawsuit was supposed to be “funny” and “for a nominal fee” or "reduced rate" (he foolishly said this in social media).
What court would take such a person seriously?
2026 update: We should add that at a later point, separately, we'll show what happened to the webhost, which told us it too had received threats and the person who made those threats later communicated to Garrett about it.
This sinister collaboration by Garrett and his GNOME/Microsoft associates merits investigation - something SRA is too poorly quipped to handle. █