SLAPP Censorship - Part 36 Out of 200: Claim KB-2024-003529 in a Nutshell (Microsoft Employee Does Terrible Things, Then Sues the Reporter in Another Continent)

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 06, 2026

Related:

• Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 1 Out of 200: Claim No. KB-2024-001270 in a Nutshell
• Confirmed: The Two Microsofters Who Filed Two Cases Against Me Were Collaborating

In 2021 I began receiving SLAPPs from Microsofters at suspicious times (we'll cover the reason for this later in this series). Almost all SLAPPs (or similar) that I receive are from Americans, such as Novell's last CEO and Shiva Ayyadurai. It seems like a cultural issue (one factor in US litigiousness is the high ratio of lawyers per citizens).

Microsofters seem to have been triggered by us exposing enough corruption/mischief/wrongdoing at GitHub that a CEO had to go. He was part of GNOME, which is something that can also be said about KB-2024-001270 (funded by mystery third parties) and KB-2024-003529 (Microsoft salaries).

Very greedy, vicious Americans attacking us in the UK by hiring guns in London is noteworthy because of the Microsoft connection. As we pointed out yesterday, they've also recycled their claims. This is a serious matter which warrants this series. We need to illuminate what they did as it is a matter of national security. As a start, I hereby replicate my D.C.C. dated July 2025 (the case reached a standstill after my D.C.C., perhaps as they recognise it can cost them a fortune to carry on).

It commences with more of an overview.

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPersonal Note on This Defence

 

1. A.This is a Detailed Response to the Pertinent Claims (Made by the Claimant in February 2025). 

Summary of Case

1. B.A summary of case commences this Defence. The case deals with things that Alex Graveley did in the United States about half a decade ago. Those are business affairs and personal affairs. Some are also the affairs of his US Attorney, who (if he sees fit) ought put forth his own meritless case rather than rely on his client, Alex Graveley, doing it for him. Alex Graveley was arrested in 2021 for strangulation of a woman (information suggests she was hardly his first victim) - a fact he not only does not deny but also confirms in his own personal Web site. What triggered this legal action is likely an ally of his, Matthew Garrett, reaching in impasse in another meritless case, advanced by the exact same legal team only months earlier. Matthew Garrett had already sent legal threats only a day after Techrights, a site of the Defendant, exposed serious scandals implicating Alex Graveley and his best friend, the CEO of Microsoft GitHub, likely resulting in the termination of both. A few days after those threats Alex Graveley got arrested, and he has since then engaged in a campaign of repeated begging, repeated  threats, and repeated attempts at extortion. He desperately wants to eliminate any information about what he did. It is not entirely surprising that the legal team of Mr.  Graveley lost two women just a few weeks before the filing of this Defence, based on the firm’s official Web site. That speaks for itself. 

    

2. C.A Defence over 40 pages in length should - based on my readings - have a short summary; one could - if pressed for time - say when serving the Defence that more is to follow or at least offer a "summary to follow", e.g. if that can further elucidate, introduce new information (emergent and critical – sometimes in-suit - updates), or improve upon this existing summary. Shall the summary need expansion, more will follow separately after the serving of this Defence and Counterclaim (D.C.C.), which is probably comprehensive enough. 

    

3. D.It cannot be stressed strongly enough that the case was brought forth by a solicitors’ firm and barrister who, based on public records, already have a history of representing men against powerless women (they also worked in tandem on that). It should also be noted that in February 2024 they targeted the Defendant’s wife with a tone deemed racist and sexist at the same time; although she is British, the legal team went out of its way to dig up a name from many years ago and sought to discredit her detailed account of hate crime she had been subjected to. This isn’t to admonish any particular person in the legal team of the Claimant; however, it is curious and likely noteworthy that the legal team of both Graveley and Garrett – who work on this in tandem while talking about each others’ cases online - is anti “metoo” and profits from targeting vulnerable women, who can barely even afford legal representation. They moreover use against them the same tactics that complicate a defence – a subject that in June  2025 a High Court Master blasted Brett Wilson LLP for. The  Garrett case’s Defence is enclosed to the Defence. The two cases should be dealt with in conjunction. 

    

4. E.Paragraphs in such a document, based on what I have read, should be numbered. In the core of the Defence I use the numbering conventions adopted in the claims (to make them easier to match against the claims), whereas in the rest (as in, other sections) I start with capital alphanumerics, then capital letters, then numbers or small alphanumerics. 

 

1. F.The Defence below, prepared by the Defendant himself, uses paragraph numbers and letters which correspond or adhere – as best as possible - to the Particulars of Claim (as per the original structure, including all pertinent numbered paragraphs). The Defence copies existing structures in order to make the correspondence clearer and it then ends with a statement of truth along with several appendices. The last appendix is a summary of positions on all Particulars of Claim. As shall repeatedly be noted, so as to categorically avoid confusion or distortion, all responses that allude to the Garrett Case are superseded by the arguments made there by a qualified barrister. If there are any doubts or perceived ambiguities, the summary in the appendix is also superseded by the detailed response which precedes it. 

    

2. G.There are almost 10 appendices. They are all important and deemed required, with their isolation from the core document being a facilitator of repeated cross-referencing. Put another way: These appendices contain important information, albeit they are better presented in isolation for reference, as well as repeated citation, from within the body of this Defence. That helps keep things organised and hopefully also easier to digest. The purpose of the  appendices is to bring up points hitherto – i.e. in or throughout the body of the Defence – uncovered or not fully addressed. 

Structural Notes

1. H.Additional references and material are added in the context of the Defence, as it responds to a 10-page document which was abundantly replicated/reused or – yet more worryingly - sloppily handled throughout its preparation based on numerous prominent markers. While it is feasible to do a side-by-side comparison to illuminate just how unoriginal the claims are, it would likely require a diagram and graphics, hence it is omitted. The idea that claims can be put forth by abundant “copy-paste jobs” (replication by bots or some form of computerised automation) is troubling for a slew of reasons to be addressed later. If this Defence reuses sentences from the prior Defence (Garrett Case), it is because of the uncanny similarity of claims in both. Where references are made by complete repetition, it is for emphasis, even at the expense of concision. 

 

1. I.The general rules of any defence, based on my understanding of English law, are expected to be followed very strictly and meticulously by a person who drafts defences for a living, including a need to respond to every paragraph of the Particulars of Claim. I will, as a non-legal-professional, do my best whilst telling my story and adding necessary information along the way. The point to stress here is that there is a lot to be said about the case and its filer, not just short paragraphs to which I must respond as a procedural – if not somewhat mechanical - compliance step. The objective is to fully document everything which is relevant, both for the law firm (which does not seem to fully understand the client and his background – a regretful error, in my humble opinion) and likewise for the Master. 

 

1. J.Some of that information was published before, sometimes elsewhere, but it was said and expressed in different words, sometimes more than just words. The words included herein are original, despite it being a response to patently unoriginal claims, as noted above and as shall be exemplified later (there are a many examples; a plethora of repetitive claims). The Garrett Case was the “blueprint” of this one, or both are derived from the same template/s. 

 

1. K.It seems like one party does not respect the time and effort of the other, e.g. by means of reusing past words to induce extra work on the other, set aside the burden of cost, not just time. Had this not been attempted by the Claimant, the Defence would be short and affordable enough, hence drafted and deposited by a qualified and experienced barrister (like the prior Defence, see later for additional details and interpretations). The magnitude and length of the claims, I would opine, is just yet another example of trying not to win a case but to encumber the respondent with heavy costs, leading to capitulation and unfavourable settlement based upon unflattering terms (e.g. forced “apology” and bulk deletion of articles without any explanation whatsoever of what’s wrong about them). It is abundantly clear, for instance, that UKGDPR has been misused to make a long list of articles the Claimant does not like without noting or bothering to 1) explain what’s wrong with them and 2) explain the legal basis upon which they somehow violate Data Protection principles (they clearly do not; this point shall be revisited in the core of the Defence). 

 

1. L.Very few of the claims will be admitted, except where there are names or other sentences that may contain a “grain of truth”, then veer off in the direction of fanaticism, fantasy (the Claimant seems to hallucinate many things about himself), and bombastic accusations against the author of Techrights, who not only expressed honest opinions but also based them on real, hard evidence. An appendix – the last of all - is added to give a simple-to-follow index of admissions, non-admissions, and denials. Along the allegations non-admitted or denied – that is of course the majority of them - there are words that aren’t just unoriginal but moreover inadequate and completely out of place. It seems unfair that I am made to respond to a mere template or a list of allegations that are so generic. It seems like one party does not respect the time of the court, let alone the time of a hard-working, pro bono writer. This case isn’t about rectifying or correcting falsehoods; it’s about bullying an author whose work was so effective that well-connected or powerful people got in trouble. In some cases, rich and well-connected people lost their jobs and cannot find jobs (in turn, their lawyer repeatedly threatened the reporter with bankruptcy and even did issue those very same threats through the reporter’s media lawyer!). A licence to practice law does not entitle anyone to bully people on behalf of rich clients; it must be grounded in law and must be backed by real, accurate evidence rather than mere conjecture.  

    

2. M.As highlighted later, there are precedents here; if one’s own actions cause a harm to reputation – never mind who harms the reputation (sometimes merely relaying something that others did beforehand) – that does not justify offloading the culpability. Put in colloquial terms, bad people do bad things. It leads to bad outcomes. 

 

1. N.I would like to openly and humbly protest – even upfront - the way in which this case was handled, including the “last-minute” (days-old) threat to compose and deliver legal claims unless all articles referred to got wholly removed, not just edited (based on no evidence that anything in them was wrong or unlawful). This isn’t the way justice is to be done. This is a form of extortion. Worse yet, as the Defence shall demonstrate, there is overwhelming evidence that this case was filed and then leveraged to aid a prior case, the Garrett Case, which had gone astray, even backfired spectacularly.  

 

1. O.These two cases are inseparable. They will accordingly be treated, hereon, as such. Because hereupon one case is formally responded to (the latter case, Graveley’s), hence further emphasis is put on it. It is not to be taken out of context in the other, or vice versa. Bluntly speaking, both cases must be dealt with in conjunction and in tandem – a reality to be pursued at all levels, including regulatory. 

1. P.It is my firm belief that this Defence is prepared within this 4-week window for no reason other than efforts to cause me to spend on a professional and qualified barrister a considerable sum of money, well beyond my means, thereby leaving me more vulnerable and without access to professional advice in the Garrett Case. This statement shall be repeated as it constitutes a core part not only of the Defence but also evidence of misconduct or of abusive litigation, as per the legal definition put forth by the UK regulator. 

    

2. Q.The  UK regulator preliminarily sees merit in allegations that this case is abusive and has advanced its investigation to that effect several times. The UK regulator may also get access to this Defence. It is in the 1) public interest; 2) general interest, e.g. the perception of integrity of the legal system; and  3) in the interest of safety of the Defendant and his wife that this Defence is shared with British authorities. 

 

1. R.Shall strict rules and practices of formality not be strictly enough (e.g. insufficient depth or reference to pertinent laws) followed herein, that is owing to professional limitations on the Defendant’s part or on his behalf, so a level of lenience is expected and may be required here. Many attempts at many levels were made to strike out my submissions, not just many threats thereof; they all failed. Their failure demonstrated that Brett Wilson LLP likes to misuse such legal moves to merely obstruct people, even deny one’s right to defend oneself with or without legal representation. This is not acceptable from a moral point of view – a view likely shared by the vast majority of people outside the legal profession or microcosm - and the matter was already dealt with by at least one Judge this year. Upon demand, further evidence of this will be swiftly neatly presented for an independent audit and a fair examination. 

1. S.I am doing the best that I can given the circumstances and I have the burden of having to speak for and defend the female victims of Mr. Graveley, not to mention men whose work was severely harmed by  Mr. Graveley’s sinister conduct in his professional – not just his private – life. It is hardly surprising that Mr. Graveley chose to leave out from the list of publications very many articles which focus on what he had done in his  professional life. Had he listed the full context, dating back to around 2007, it would further embarrass him and admonish his legal representatives. I will again repeat that his lawyer and barrister clearly know too little about their client; maybe they even prefer it that way as the more they learn, the less likely they will wish to associate with him and work for him. Whether their professional reputation matters to them is a matter of their own choosing; bad taste, however, leads to negative outcomes, not limited to one’s status and legal standing. Short-term financial gains come with a risk, e.g. working for drug users who do not even deny their arrest (they admit it in the open) and say utterly racist things. While lawyers are entitled to do many of those things, they are not free from the consequences. 

    

2. T.This document will not name anyone in the legal firm; it is not a personal matter. But as a firm, collectively, it is hoped that their actions will speak for themselves. Although potentially tempting, I shall refrain from any personal attacks on Brett Wilson LLP, bearing in mind that naming anyone other than the people whose names are in the firm’s name (i.e. Mr. Brett and Mr. Wilson) and the barrister will likely backfire or  be framed as “personal attacks”. They already attempted this false characterisation at the Hearing in June 2025, however the Master turned down such efforts. I understand that it is better to be understated and let the Judge work it out, based on the simple facts alone. I fully understand that lawyers are different people to their cases, however they typically choose their cases (they can filter or turn down clients), so the cases they take should merit scrutiny; if they choose to advance a meritless case for incredulous persons, that can reflect poorly on them as individuals. As the judge – any judge for that matter - was once in private practise, he/she will empathise with them if they are attacked personally, based on my understanding. I ask for recognition that it is not my intention to personally attack any individual but rather to describe what the firm does, collectively, and the effect its actions have on innocent people. Firms work as commercial enterprises seeking profit, whereas private citizens pursue justices on terms and ideologies disconnected from the profit motive. 

 

1. U.This document will attempt to water down if not altogether avoid technical jargon, as the target audience and expected readers are legal professionals who probably do not fully comprehend what their client does and did in his professional capacity (as noted in the last appendix, for instance, nobody in the law firm and not even the barrister understand that “Internet” must have a capital “I”). That does not mean that technical matters won’t be discussed; it only means that acronyms will be mostly avoided and the terms chosen simplified somewhat. That isn’t done to patronise anyone; it’s just a matter of making the facts easier to follow and for the case to be seen as simply as it should be. The lawyers of Mr. Graveley try to overcomplicate matters as it helps obscure the core issues. For instance, there’s no reason to throw almost 1,000 pages at a Judge for a 60-minute hearing; it’s overwhelming the Court and takes up time that could instead be spent on more preliminary issues, i.e. on the basic and most fundamental questions. 

 

1. V.More must be said about the unacceptable chaining of cases, wherein the goal is to overwhelm the “target” with work instead of presenting potent evidence in any single case (quantity over quality). They say good cases speak for themselves; poor ones require piles of papers as a smokescreen. 

    

2. W.References to paragraph numbers are to those in the Particulars of Claim unless otherwise indicated. However, since many comparisons shall be made to the “twin” case of Matthew Garrett, there will be some leeway in the enumeration (for further reference see the last appendix, which serves as a sort of index). It’s important to properly demonstrate – in a trivial way that any outsider can promptly (“on the spot”) follow – the grave similarity between the two screeds. They are not dissimilar. They are not unique, for a number of reasons noted in a long list in the appendices, especially in Appendix I. 

3. X.Save as expressly admitted, the Claimant is put to strict proof as to all facts and matters alleged in the Particulars of Claim. As will be noted with many details and allusions to real, concrete documents, many of the particulars (in the oversized Particulars of Claim) are pure fiction, deliberate distortions of properly-documented events (as per formal documents), malicious projections of guilt (grossly reversing the narrative of victimhood), and statements which may themselves constitute libel – that it to say the Particulars of Claim themselves can be considered defamatory and slanderous towards some people. Examples of the latter will be given, as they are based not just on a grain of truth but a fully traceable chain of verifiable facts. 

4. Y.On a separate note, there are a number of critical points that shall be presented as an invariantly true condition or conditions: 

1) This legal team of the Claimant is double-dipping the King's Bench Division (KBD) docket, which KBD will be politely made aware of whenever opportunities arise;

2) The SRA, the regulator that can fine or strike off rogue law firms, has advanced a complaint about these practices several times already, having been notified and seen real merit in the complaint (ref: RGC-000155007), but this Defence is independent from the ongoing complaint, albeit it may serve to reinforce existing evidence and must, accordingly, be treated as such;

3) The Particulars of Claim in both claims (the Garrett Case and Graveley Case) can be measured as highly similar, with about 30-40% of the text virtually identical, so it is very clearly recycled and reused (the original or the truly unique parts are at best 50% of the document);

4) The pattern and timing – e.g. the nature and times of communications in both cases - demonstrate how one case is used to bolster the other; they're not independent; the term “twin” will often be used to describe the relationship between the two cases, not to mention the demonstrable relations between the Claimants (detailed are included, enumerated quite clearly in fact, in Appendix I and Appendix V);

5) It is crystal clear the covert modus operandi or the underlying aim of the second claim is to drain out or simply exhaust the legal defence budget (or even make everyday life miserable, difficult, arduous both for Roy and his wife Rianne, who wrote about the abuse that she had received and is now facing yet more abuse – an abuse or harassment by process – for merely speaking about it), with many offers made along the way which demonstrate that even the claimants themselves see no merit in their claims and instead just want a very long list of pages (i.e. true but embarrassing articles) removed sans due process;

6) I think of this defence as explaining everything to someone who knows nothing about the claim. Moreover, I genuinely protest having to do this for many good reasons. With the 'stroke of a keyboard' a barrister can pour out some edited and reused words, for the recipient (Defendant) to then have to spend perhaps 100 times more time (duration) and 10 times more words (work) to respond. This is deeply unethical and unfair. On many levels, I consider this whole case immoral and unethical, laying liability not just on the Claimant but also all of his facilitators (who profit a lot from it). Those are de facto “Public Relations” or “Reputation Management” operatives, who are in effect helping a violent man from another continent not only oppress women whom he attacked but also the person who simply reported that information in a relatively polite fashion, even with supporting proof (hindering baseless denials a priori). On top of that, they clearly help his attempts to cover up what he and his best friend did at Microsoft GitHub, apparently causing their swift dismissal. So aside from insipid behaviour in one’s personal life they may also help cover up business crimes, all this while repeatedly rejecting simple questions about who funds the lawsuits. They were already presented with clear evidence that the money cannot possible come (directly) from their clients. Never did they even bother to reply to that, either formally or informally.

1. Z.Litigation transparency has laws associated with it and those shall be leveraged (by means of discovery or subpoena if necessary) to identify who is funding this and the motivations, which can be inferred by the origin of these funds. 

2. AA.Regarding attempts to twist a denial as something that is not, I shall state my position clearly, a priori as well. Knowing the antics of the law firms and its tactics, I anticipate that distortions of my words will follow aplenty. Abundance of words does not beget risk; it adds clarity. The point of repetition or paraphrasing is better clarity and emphasis. It’s not an opening for nit-picking by an eager critic looking to distort a messenger’s true intentions. 

3. AB.My understanding is that a denial is non-confirmatory statement - or a statement about something to say  about another statement that it is not true. After a denial I should put particulars, as that’s what I am led to assume from my understanding of the rules, so I shall do my best to describe the finer details, without yet attaching of fully disclosing the evidence because this is a purely verbal (no images) Defence and there are no oral proceedings. Additional, pertinent evidence can be supplied much later. There is abundant evidence that all published material is true, accurate, and in no way “malicious”. Moreover, it is in the public interest for this material to be widely known. There is a massive class-action lawsuit connected to this. 

4. AC.My understanding - as a non-lawyer who has been driven to act in person (to the best of my abilities and comprehension of official manuals online) because of repeated attacks on budget (by repeated SLAPPs) - is also that apart from the specific admissions, non-admissions and denials the Defence is an opportunity for me to tell my story - though at this stage I do not need to "plead evidence" (even where I can do so, though it would lengthen this document). 

5. AD.If the Defence is flawed, based on my understanding, then bits can be struck out and I will (or may) be ordered to pay costs. However, as I do the best given the circumstances, any such   attempts would be perceived as manipulation or "gaming the system". Harassing actions by means of leveraging processes ought to be frowned upon. If meritless challenges to this defence are attempted, I shall refer back to this and prior paragraphs. I fully anticipate borderline foul play by Brett Wilson LLP, based on my prior experience with that firm in the Garrett Case and then again in the Graveley Case. Fairness, including by means of engagement and intra-process communication, goes both ways. I never – not even once – attempted to strike out or even threatened to strike out anything from Brett Wilson LLP. It takes financial means and specialities to do so. Balances and imbalances in the financial sense ought not play a role in the Rule of Law, where facts are judged based on merit rather than procedural insistence and various machinations. 

6. AE.It is duly noted that attempts to strike out this document will be seen as yet another attempt to vex and harass the Defendant. When the goal is not to properly and legitimately win a claim or a case but instead to drown the other side with legal bills and legal papers (over 5 KG or physical legal papers sent in the first year alone!), it does a disservice to the general perception of justice. 

7. AF. When a counterclaim needs careful work to avert strikeout, due to a lack of access to lawyers, this isn't about justice but about access to money. Justice and access to money aren't orthogonal concepts. This was already attempted in 2024, as if only one side is permitted to put through legal claims while not even disclosing who covers the costs. While suggestions of an amendment would be welcomed, this is not an invitation to do so. 

8. AG.Please treat the Defendant with respect. It is, unlike a law firm (company), an actual person. █