SLAPP Censorship - Part 41 Out of 200: More Misuse of UK-GDPR (for US Citizens), More Copy-Pasting for Garrett and Graveley, Alleging That Publishing Unflattering Information is a 'Privacy' Issue
One year ago: UK High Court Blasts Brett Wilson LLP for Misusing "GDPR" After Failed Efforts to Censor Critics Using 'Libel' Claims
Just in time for our next formal complaint?
By Bianca Castro in The Law Society Gazette. Good timing.
Lots and lots of "copy-paste" or - to use the slang - "copypasta" in their filings (Garrett already confirmed and affirmed after he had sworn on the Bible that he and Graveley coordinated using this barrister because my wife and I sued him for harassment in September 2024 [1, 2]). See below one of plenty of examples:
No wonder his own colleagues thought poorly of him (the junior barrister). Trying to take shortcuts as a career-climbing cellphone-wrangling man chasing money of footballers' wife. The public deserves to know this, and our barrister agrees. Regulators, alike, need to become aware. We may inform the BSB at some point (they try to bury us so that we cannot speak).
The highlight shows reuse, similarity, or bland "copy-paste"/"copypasta" (throwing the burden at Defendants at minimal effort, within seconds or at most minutes). Such practice - even if as prevalent as slop - is profoundly unethical because it begets massive legal bills (for both sides; Garrett and Graveley, two Americans combined, must have amassed about a million dollars in legal bills, funded by third parties whose identity they refuse to disclose and they sent us over 85 KG of legal papers). Thankfully, for Microsoft (Graveley's employer at time of his arrest), about a million dollars got spent trying to kill what's left of real and independent tech journalism (since 2021).
In the last part we showed how last-minute efforts were made to saddle my wife and I with additional legal fees (new case) only a few weeks after we had sued Garrett and had enough budget to present evidence, invite up to six witnesses, and hire a barrister for the trial dates. Garrett communicated with Graveley (by his very own admission, under sworn oath) and another frivolous case got filed by the exact same legal team (same lawyer, same barrister; they even lost track of which case is which! They admitted this to us under sworn oath!).
Graveley basically helped his Microsoft/GNOME friend drain our legal budget, undermining our prospects of: 1) access to justice; 2) access to legal adviser; 3) access to legal representation; 4) witnesses ((3) is typically needed to protect them).
Without (4), it's hard to even present any evidence, so the miscarriage of justice (if not mistrial) is enabled by dirty manoeuvrers, or gaming the system by stuffing the docket against us. We reported this to the SRA (over a year ago), which faces our government's scrutiny in 4 days' time in London (because it fails to perform its job, which is regulation; it gives a mere illusion of oversight while bad behaviour by lawyers isn't policed by anybody and we receive threats from burner accounts). To be clear, in almost 6 months of "investigation" the SRA did not even examine our evidence (it said about 10 times in a period of several months that it could not receive the files!).
Below I present my response to the above "copy-paste"/"copypasta" from the young barrister, who was a kid when this site started in 2006.
-
6.All these claims are denied without exception. There is no breach of UKGDPR and this has been brought as a claim – even well outside the United States - because of the old age of these publications, as will be discussed later. Mr. Graveley repeatedly begged (he himself used that word repeatedly; he even used emoticons to convey the begging, on top of using the words themselves) for removal of articles from around that time, not on the basis of privacy but instead asserting that they caused him problems in his personal and professional life. To set the record straight Techrights later disclosed some of these communications in IRC and in the Web site, techrights.org (those are in the appendices herein as well; see Appendix III). Mr. Graveley is fully aware that Techrights was transparent about it and rebutted challenges sent its way. The efforts to remove these pages by repeatedly begging the publisher are significant, both from the perspective of law and of morality. They are a legally important factor because they serve as an implicit admission of guilt. They help demonstrate the true motivations of Mr. Graveley, who was unhappy about impactful journalism that likely led to forced resignations inside Microsoft, even that of a CEO (his whole social circle there seemed to have been impacted, not because of the strangling but the shady business conduct, which Appendix V explains in some length). His close friends left – or got pushed out by - the company at around the same time and some of them sent messages protesting what Techrights had shown (not because it was false). We have copies of those messages and they are authenticated. Techrights helped expose some of the above-mentioned scandals and some of the issues discussed in the publications Mr. Graveley seeks to censor with weakly-argued UKGDPR claims. Colourful printouts of the pertinent pages make up a large bundle of paper, but there is no real legal basis upon which to demand their removal, just quantity over quality. An alternative way to frame the motivations here is, the Claimant is fully aware that 1) nothing unlawful was done by the publisher and 2) it has been a very long time. The Claimant thus attempts to fling many pages or URLs at the wall and hopes that something, somehow, can stick. To this day, nothing has been presented to compel Techrights to believe that 1) the publications at hand are false and 2) any law at all – either in the United States or in the United Kingdom – was breached when the publications were made (or thereafter). Please revisit the Garrett Case, where merely identical strategies and almost the exact same wordings were used to falsely assert information was illegitimately acquired and/or published. Both were composed by the same barrister, usually even in the same order if not the exact same words; the only parameters subjected to visible change were URLs, names, and some miscellaneous details about what’s alleged. The burden of proof or the burden of potent allegations therefore rest partly on the Claimant and partly on the author of the claims. It seems unfair that the Defendant will have to issue the same detailed responses twice within less than 12 months, just because the court fees were paid twice in the same year by two American men who know each other, talk about each other, serve the same company, serve the same project (GNOME), and have lots of mutual friends, with whom they openly joke that they engage in a “conspiracy” (their word). What they are doing is no joking matter. Nor is there room for making such public jokes about it, for it is self-incriminating, much like openly referring to the legal action as “funny” (Garrett did this in late 2023 when he was looking for a law firm to facilitate his “funny” lawsuit against not only Roy but also against Rianne, who merely wrote about the abuse she had been subjected to despite never speaking or in any way provoking anybody). See again Appendix V for an outline or a full chronology of events.
They never responded to the text above. They ran out of time and pleaded for more time. A few weeks or days later they also pleaded for more time for Garrett. They were failing or struggling to meet deadlines in Court Orders. █
