SLAPP Censorship - Part 37 Out of 200: The Correct Suspicion Garrett and Graveley Were Collaborating in Overseas Litigation Against Critics

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 07, 2026

Confirmed: The Two Microsofters Who Filed Two Cases Against Me Were Collaborating [2025]

In 2024 - yes, indeed two years ago - we explained to Brett Wilson LLP that we knew they were 'double-dipping' the docket, being the reckless hired guns that they are. Transparency about all this is imperative in order to protect others, not just American women who were victims but also other Brits who might similarly be SLAPPed by Americans (or Russians). It is a matter of national security. If Microsofters and back doors' boosters from America frivolously sue Brits to keep them silent (using "generous" threats after begging), then the public must know. Yesterday we released some introductory text about the man Garrett joined forces with shortly after we had sued him [1, 2] (not something he anticipated despite me telling this to him in 2021 after he had SLAPPed me the first time [1, 2]).

After repeatedly lying to several judges Garrett placed his hand on the Bible (because he had to) and under pressure he finally admitted that he and Graveley had collaborated. This is a very serious matter. Based on what his barrister told the judge, he felt traumatised by this embarrassment to him; he probably felt ambushed, he kept hiding behind his barrister (even physically) throughout the trial.

The barrister and lawyers very well understand the ramifications of lying to several judges at the High Court, so nowadays they're busy threatening me and my family - they try as hard as they can to silence us [1, 2]. I've even received threatening E-mails from burner accounts, demanding that I remove articles about Brett Wilson LLP or else!

What they did was also bad from professional point of view because they did lots of copy-pasting (then overcharged Garrett's sponsor for it; his litigation against us was sponsored by rich third parties). These lawsuits are, in effect, being instrumentalised by secretive third parties to harm this Web site whilst at the same time they dox family members and try to shut down the site. The story about this must be told and our barrister, who spent many years at Ofcom (media specialist) urged us to tell our story because, according to him, never did he see something equally outrageous. He had a very, very poor view of these lunatics from America. One lived in a cabin in some forest (with barely even clean water or a telephone line), the other lived in his dad's home (whilst in his forties!).

Below I replicate my text from last summer, as it explained some of the unprofessional conduct and "tag-teaming" by Garrett and Graveley (by cross-examining Garrett I finally got him to confess this was real and hence his lawyers had repeatedly defamed me while acting in a highly menacing fashion). They were basically bullying me and my loved ones alike. They're bullies. This is lawfare. Moreover, the intent behind this "tag-teaming" was to drain our legal budget so that our lawsuits against Garrett would have us unrepresented and unable to present evidence (witnesses need a barrister to protect their interests and review their statements; it costs a lot).

Without further ado, a portion from my counterclaim (stalled or in a standstill for a year). █

---

IIImportant Note Regarding Duplication in Particulars of Claim

 

1. A.This part deals with formality; 

1. This Defence is to be read in conjunction with the Defence in Case number KB-2024-001270 between the Schestowitz couple (Roy and Rianne) and Matthew Garrett. Hereinafter, I will refer to that as the "Garrett Case" or KB-2024-001270 (or both) and refer to the respective Defence as the Garrett Defence. Those terms all allude the same case, which is intertwined on many levels.

1. i.I strongly reject any weak attempt to paint the overlaps as a mere “coincidence”; there are mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise – some of that evidence was in fact presented already in the Techrights Web site. Some of the key points were sent by E-mail to the litigating party; all it responded with was name-calling. 

2. ii.It did not even properly show any evidence of funds being available, such as a Security For Costs form/document, bank statement, transaction details and so on. None. 

3. iii.A textual statement in E-mail does not constitute valid proof and the Companies House, which illuminates financial/accounting data of UK-based firms, suggests that Brett Wilson LLP is very deep in debt, is rapidly declining in terms of number of staff (over 20% decrease in a couple of years), and has less than 100 thousand pounds in the bank. 

4. iv.It also set up a shell entity, called “Brett and Wilson” (10 years after Brett Wilson LLP had been created). That shell, which is also “limited”, meaning it’s hard to hold the Directors accountable as person., has just 2 pounds in the bank. 

5. v. It is not only concerning, it’s also curious and the Defendant has every right to question the honesty regarding costs in the cases (both the Garrett Case and the Graveley Case). That matter shall be pursued as far as is feasible. Transparency is paramount. 

2. It is my contention that this claim is not brought as a genuine claim concerned with the reputation of Balabhadra (or Alex) Graveley. While I realise that I must not disclose the terms of "without prejudice" offers, I believe it is proper to record that an offer was made to me in the Garrett Case several times that was predicated on the fact that if I did not accept the offer made by him (both in late 2023 and 2024, demanding censorship, public apology etc.), then a claim would be made against me and against my wife (by him, who had already made empty threats since 2021!). Then the exact same thing was done repeatedly by Balabhadra (or Alex) Graveley, who had on numerous occasions literally begged me to remove articles about him (since around 2022; see Appendix III). The  Techrights Web site documented this as well; it helps demonstrate – even to the wider public which may have a considerable stake in the outcome (not just the integrity of the legal system but also Microsoft) – the bad faith with which this claim was brought. Balabhadra (or Alex) Graveley recognised that he had done something really bad; he begged for forgiveness. Now, with his claim, he engages in absurd revisionism and wants to put a false version of history in a British court’s record (database, docket, sites and so on). On numerous grounds/bases, in fact, his claims deserve to be struck out; without legal representation, however, it would be difficult to properly (using a legally correct structure) serve a not only a counterclaim but also strike out the majority of his false claims. Framed another way, if it was within my powers (and budget; as counterclaims come with steep court fees in KBD and strike out claims is a complicated procedure), he too would be put in severe problems (claims struck out) – albeit in a continent far from him – for his conduct. If a British court can admit a claim made by an American, then his de facto immunity as a foreign “sovereign citizen”  should be rendered moot and he must be held reasonably, proportionately, and symmetrically accountable. I object to the way Brett Wilson LLP facilitated not only one but two Americans with meritless claims; one of them lives in a cabin at a forest and another lives in his father’s home. Enforcing British law against them or even just serving papers upon them is far from trivial. There are logistical reasons, aside from knowing the addresses. It should be noted that, as per official documents from the Texas Police, the cops had to go to the home of the father of Balabhadra (or Alex) Graveley. Balabhadra (or Alex) did not even open the door. His father, Franklin Richard Graveley, did. On some occasions he just resides in the homes of his sexual partners, as happened at the time the latest strangulation happened. It’s not simple to locate him, but when found he was put at the back of the police car, sent to prison, and his credit card taken was away for containing a name that did not match his own legal name. A law firm - assuming that did proper background checks – would all know this, including bail payment etc. It would study the case before rushing into it. It would access official documents rather than rely on hearsay with an incredulous man from another continent with Microsoft cash (salaries from Microsoft) at hand. Even prior to the incident leading up to his arrest he had done truly terrible things. Some of these became public knowledge, as the Defence will explain later. It  became public knowledge not because of Techrights, which mostly organised facts and evidence.

3. This claim is an abuse of process brought for the collateral purpose of putting pressure on me in the Garrett Case. Further Particulars will be given after Disclosure in this case as to the extent of collusion between Balabandra Graveley and Matthew Garrett and the collusion, between them through the solicitors who represent them, Brett Wilson LLP. It is beyond a mere coincidence that two individuals living in two different states of the USA, namely California and Texas, chose to instruct the same firm of solicitors, with the exact same Barrister as well. I do not make this point to embarrass Brett Wilson LLP but to show the collusion between the two Claimants and the lack of bona fides in this claim. The Court, KBD, deserves to know and to fully understand this background. Obscuring what happened by throwing almost 1,000 pages at a Judge ahead of a 60-minute meeting, in addition to stalling tactics, is classic ‘gish gallop’ that shall be revisited later. It is a de facto “Denial of Service” attack on the Defendant and also a siege against the Judge, depriving the  Defendant of capacity and time to explain and plead/advocate his side in front of the Judge. No respected law firm should resort to this against a pro bono LIP. The very fact that it happened and it keeps happening means that this is a part of a pattern; later, when the context is more adequate, the Dale Vince case of  Brett Wilson LLP will be brought up to show that even High Court Justices have noticed and formally ruled on this kind of pattern.  Brett Wilson LLP was blasted for what was deemed “abuse of process” (to quote the Justice himself). In conclusion, it would not be unprecedented to point out such abuse, including misuse of a licence (to practice law) and efforts to hide behaviour as such using “without prejudice”. The SRA guidance on that matter is very clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied.

4. Balabhadra Graveley is also known as Alex Graveley, so the interchangeable usage of first name adds to a self-serving confusion, both within the claim and in the E-mails send by his solicitors. Insofar as reputation, it is denied that anyone within this jurisdiction would even know that the Claimant is Balabhadra. I have witness statements ready (sent to me already) to demonstrate that renowned people in the below-mentioned fields – or the field or proclaims he is well known in - never even heard of this person, who is obscure to them (by both names). Upon demand such statements would be disclosed. In this Defence and throughout the entire text it will be made clear that both names are the same person (not multiple people or “personas”), so the names are really interchangeable. It is curious that even throughout this case/process the Claimant himself does not consistently use his own name. It’s like he keeps switching between them depending on what he wants the public to see. Perhaps with reputation management – one might even say “reputation laundering” goals in mind (e.g. when applying for a job).

1. B.To this Defence I needfully attach the Garrett Defence. It is enclosed in full as an annex to this Defence. It is imperative to have it at hand as it serves to demonstrate the many parallels, which are simply difficult to dispute or to easily deny. The inclusion of the first Defence, along with this second Defence, serves to affirm my longstanding suggestion – a humble and modest assertion - that the cases were both planned and dealt with in parallel, hence the need for a joint trial is far more compelling, both for the Court and for the Claimants, not only to avoid duplication and wasted effort but to also show abuse of process or  deliberate harassment by process.  

2. C.The format of the Defence below, as per the conventions suggested in the KBD Web site, should be similarly in alignment (w.r.t. paragraphs and sections), for this will make the similarity between the claims more evident, even shallow. 

3. D. In case of doubts, or if clarity is subpar, the Defendant is open to suggestions and can be contacted amicably for further clarifications.