SLAPP Censorship - Part 35 Out of 200: How to Make ~10,000 Pound Sterling (13,220.50 United States Dollars) by Copy-Pasting and Editing 10 Pages
6 PM on a Friday from his Apple Mac:
Not much to be done, recycle the previous one (Confirmed: The Two Microsofters Who Filed Two Cases Against Me Were Collaborating).
Just over a year ago Garrett's and Graveley's 'tag-team' act was formalised, almost a year after Garrett's first SLAPP/punch thrown at my wife and I (his own spouse says he is a rapist this year; he is a hypocrite). It started 5 years ago with this letter that I mentioned in 2021. In October 2024 we had already instructed our solicitor to respond to Graveley's SLAPP, informing his lawyers and barrister they were in essence representing a violent American in a British court to harass the person who spoke for women victims and routinely covered Microsoft corruption (Graveley worked for Microsoft at the time of his arrest, which he did not deny but begged to keep secret). In the next few parts we're going to show the barrister was uncreative; he was replicating the same boilerplate text or arguably an off-the-shelf template he had flung our way for Graveley. Remember those people charge about $500 per hour (even the juniors in their 30s; they used several barristers at one point, based on metadata); they're barely any better than sloppy LLMs. Is this getting one's money's worth? And what about judges who need to waste money going through all this "copypasta"? These judges don't get paid as much and in the trial this past October the judge said it was a waste of the court's time/money (this was said verbally, but didn't make it into the decision). Remember they volleyed 75+ KG of legal papers our way (funded by third parties because Garrett cannot afford to pay the lawyers) and took, then shared, photos of where we live. They claim to specialise in data protection, so there's no excuse for this.
This is a matter of national security. It also impacts corruption in the American legal system, as we'll show in later parts and mentioned in passing 2+ years ago. The crooked systems in the US begets "caseload" for the UK. Can't they fix their own problems first?
Our aim in the next few parts will be to show how, perhaps in general (rather broadly), this whole media/communication litigation "industry" (or defamation lawyers/law firms - they themselves defame people) makes a killing by representing reprehensible people, even those coming from other continents (with notorious disdain for free press) to harm reporters in their native land, the UK. Hence they got dubbed "hired guns" - a term even the SRA has adopted. Sometimes they represent people or front for ("proxy for" is a more eccentric framing) people who literally use guns to commit war crimes.
On the 14th of this month the SRA will be grilled over its failure to regulate these firms and prevent such abuses. We'll resume our series about this when our politicians are done (we escalated to them in February; they were responsive). There is plenty more to come as much merits coverage and transparency matters (our barrister told us very clearly we're allowed to write about such an absurd case; he had spent many years working at Ofcom).
Today it's Easter Sunday, so we'll keep this part relatively short. A lot more will be published soon. █
____
● They tried to blame "third party" for getting Rianne's name wrong - an act that we deemed both racist and sexist (they resorted to projection; trying to claim "intolerance" for us merely pointing this out!). Almost always can one count on lawyers to somehow twist their own evilness as someone else's fault or paint themselves as the victim of what they themselves do. They would even lie to judges about this with a straight face (as they did several times).