SLAPP Censorship - Part 39 Out of 200: Recycled Text for Garrett and Graveley (Buy One, Get One Free?)
Compare the texts of the Particulars of Claims (PoCs), with many more examples to come.
In the previous part (early this morning) we showed how shameless self-promotion and obvious exaggerations can become docket material in the UK, put there by Americans via hired guns. Shown above is how their barrister recycles text to make perhaps thousands of pounds per hour (as per real time spent, not time claimed to have been spent unless there are discounts arranged). He does not even know his client's first name!
Garrett and Graveley worked on this together, based on what Garrett told me after he had sworn on the Bible.
As a bit of background for those who are only just (right now) joining us: in 2021 Graveley was arrested in the US for strangling women and around the same time Garrett began sending me legal threats and Graveley's "best friend" lost his job as GitHub's CEO. All those people (three of them) are in GNOME and were connected to or employed by Microsoft. They know each other, they're no strangers by any stretch of imagination.
When I wrote this morning we had already amassed over 75 KG of legal papers from Garrett and Graveley; since then they've dumped another 10 KG or so of legal papers, bringing the tally up to around 85+ KG as of this morning. They've just sent thousands of pages for a very short meeting (about 90 minutes, that's a rate of over 15 pages per minute of meeting), as sometimes quantity can make up for a lack of quality argument. They call it "optics". The facts don't favour them and they know it. People associated with Brett Wilson LLP (the hired guns of Garrett and Graveley) were sending threats from burner accounts - threats I could in theory pass to the police but chose not to. Their threats to us were expected and anticipated, as they strive to take down our site while doxing relatives of mine (Garrett acting like a cracker, not a hacker) and trying to hide their contempt of court, abuse of process, many breaches of rules, defamatory letters etc. To distract from what their clients did to women they're picking on my wife over things Garrett's employer has done since 2012 (Garrett made it personal and attacked me personally for criticising his employer over it) and now they foresee British taxpayers shouldering the cost of this Americans-only tag-team litigation, which was reported to the toothless SRA over a year ago. It should be mentioned that Brett Wilson LLP is being sponsored by third parties and salaries from Microsoft to do this to us. Their barrister made lots of money this way, not the first time he and Brett Wilson LLP pick on underfunded women.
Below is my response to this barrister talking about Techrights as if a site that exposes a lot of corruption (since 2006; the barrister was a little kid back then!) is actually the "naughty" party that merits or deserves punishment. Remember: this is sponsored by third parties and salaries from Microsoft. Garrett is being instrumentalised for censorship by shadowy third parties and he only ever communicates via hired guns that already sent nearly 100 KG of legal documents to us (conservative estimate of the legal bills by now is around a million dollars; Garrett ran out of money ages ago).
-
2.Paragraph 2 is admitted. It is peculiar, however, when the words are examined a tad more closely. Both the adjacent claims of Matthew Garrett (KB-2024-001270; the Garrett Case) and of Mr. Graveley are drafted similarly with many of the same structures and styles, even the words. These two people are closely connected – a subject to be explored later (especially in Appendix I and V). Since both are represented by the same lawyer and the same barrister perhaps this should be expected, but reuse or not (it is beyond doubt at this point; seems like a template), it is a glaring resemblance which implies laziness or a lack of care for the person needing to issue a carefully-worded response (perhaps hoping that it would be weakly phrased the second time around). It should be noted that this claim and its number (subsection) is almost identical to the same one in the other claim. Is this a complete but fluid template or more plagiarism ("AI" or some pseudo-LLM slop at work)? If neither, is this an error or just a coincidence? To be clear, the claim is moreover an abuse of process. It has not been brought for a genuine purpose, but rather to help KB-2024-001270, to which there was a potent counterclaim (the Master rejected a challenge to this counterclaim). It was also prepared in a hurry, at short notice, after I deem to be attempts at extortion (wanting the publisher to shoulder the burden for someone else’s assault on women), wherein the Defendant was sent an absurd ultimatum which demonstrated the weakness of the claim. As noted in the “twin” claim, the Defendant has a PhD in Computer Science. He should have been properly referred to in the Particulars of Claim as Dr Roy Schestowitz, as already noted in the Defence to the Garrett Case. That the Barrister or the Claimant persist in and insist on using the wrong title is more noteworthy in light of the fact that the same barrister used a very old surname (pre-2012) for Roy’s wife, effectively putting in High Court dockets a name which shames the wife as if she’s neither British nor married (she is both). I consider that disrespectful to women (another common pattern here and in the Garrett Case alike) and a naked disregard towards “non-White” British people. It’s veiled racism or shallow nativism. Further clarification is imperative here too. The Defendant is the principal author and editor and the “website” is actually not just a Web site – as in World Wide Web (HTML and HTTP/S) site. It also acts as a Gemini capsule (Gemini Protocol is a modern alternative to the Web, which started in June 2019), InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) node, IRC network, Git repository, to name some among other services (which are included but are not publicly reachable to all as they involve core people). The Defendant operates many things other than a “website” (he looks after over a dozen Web sites, not only his own; he made his first Web site almost 30 years ago) and techrights.org (Techrights) is more than just a domain for the World Wide Web (“www” as referred to in the Claims). The Defendant operates many things, but the Claimant focuses on one particular function – namely that of a Web site. The distinction is crucial and needs to be fully comprehended, for otherwise the common misconceptions can be leveraged on the basis of ignorance. While many in the legal profession understandably struggle with certain technical jargon, especially acronyms that belong to more pertinent areas, the Defendant and Claimant are fluent in the matter and are to be dealt with accordingly. The Defendant is eager to explain the underlying details in a fashion everyone can grasp, whereas the Claimant resorts to the lingo and mumbo-jumbo of “AI” and so-called ‘crypto’ ‘currencies’ – the latter serves to obscure what is really being talked about. Simplicity does not favour the Claimant, as simplicity makes more accessible and comprehensible the nature of what he did, what was reported, and why the reporting was perfectly legitimate, even a form of public service. █
Previous parts, published thus far:
Greed without boundaries compels people to do horrible things, then bully the people who talk about those horrible things, aided by very greedy hired guns who would do anything for money, even lie to judges.