SLAPP Censorship - Part 43 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Particulars of Claims Almost Identical and 5RB Needs to Investigate Its Barristers (Its Reputation is at Stake)
Microsoft's [1, 2] Graveley & Garrett v Schestowitz & Schestowitz shows they use an uncreative and very young (cheap; Garrett publicly said he was looking for something cheap) barrister who just copy-pastes the Particulars of Claim, set aside how they stuff the docket of a distant continent to shoehorn a hopeless case of a serial strangler to shoulder another's: (case for person whose own spouse repeatedly calls a rapist this year)
![[Matthew Garrett Particulars of Claim, Alex Graveley Particulars of Claim] On 7 July 2019 the First Defendant stated in an article on Techrights that the website had nearly five million hits in a single week. It can be inferred that a substantial number of these hits will be unique publishees and that the number of hits on Techrights (and the Publications published on Techrights) at the point of settling these Particulars of Claim continue to be substantial.](/i/2026/04/techrights-copypasta.png)
And third parties fund this (about $1,000,000 in legal bills). Since 2021.
Notice how not only the text is virtually identical (lots more examples of this yet to come); even the numbers are the same (they need not be). What does he do all this time that he is billing for? Scrolling up and down in social control media with gossip of dumb people (while attacking smart women)?
The past couple of parts covered abuse of process and basic errors [1, 2]. Today we take a look at how Garrett and Microsoft's Graveley, who both filed cases in coordination (to drain our legal budget after we had sued Garrett [1, 2]), basically recycled their claims using the same barrister who does not even know his client's name! How much lazy copy-pasting was done?
Just to be very clear, Garrett and Microsoft's Graveley had spoken before the Graveley case; Garrett admitted and affirmed this to me under sworn oath after he touched the Bible and acted all evasive because I asked a series of questions, not only undoing his prior denials but also proving - inter alia - that he and his lawyers (and barrister) had lied to at least 3 High Court judges (probably 4), then Microsoft's Graveley did the same. This is a very serious matter that adds up to contempt of the court by two American clients and several of their legal representatives ("hired guns") in the UK. They call themselves defamation specialists, yet they've repeatedly defamed me (so they're good at defamation, sure, they keep doing it). They didn't even follow the rules, which they're meant to know if they finish law school. They vainly assume that when facing an inexperienced Litigant in Person [1, 2] they can just flout - even ignore and violate - the rules without getting caught or called out, i.e. no real consequences to them. Currently their own clients are suing them (and 5RB as well!) as Litigants in Person [1, 2, 3] and the lawsuit against Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB is still going ahead. They're unable to strike out claims from Litigants in Person. That says a lot. There's merit.
Two years ago a very small local firm told us Brett Wilson LLP had become notorious for taking hopeless cases that stood little chance of success (sans cheating and bullying) and therefore they had already given up on reputation - something that they claim (in vain) to champion. Over time we found that out for ourselves; only months later Brett Wilson LLP decided to paint a violent American with addiction problems as some sort of international superstar (which he clearly was not; his reputation was already as terrible as can be and he lived in his dad's home).
Regarding the barrister, even his own colleagues at 5RB think poorly of him. Some people take shortcuts to "get ahead", but those shortcuts can prove costly later. Nothing lasts forever. Flying near the Sun with wings of wax is generally unwise.
Shown above is what we hope to be self-explanatory (highlights added). Below is my response to it (I filed a counterclaim; like Garrett that month, Graveley too failed to meet a deadline from a Court's Order).
Regarding the above 'copypasta' prepared for Graveley in the same 'kitchen' as Garrett's, here is my response from the Defence and Counterclaim (DCC), dated July 2025:
7. This seems like a relatively gross or crude reuse of the words from Matthew Garrett’s claim, which was advanced in the same year (KB-2024-001270, the Garrett Case; even the paragraphs’ structure and numbers are eerily similar). There are many details showing that the cases are dealt with in tandem, not just using a similar strategy but also the same lawyer and same barrister. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is admitted. The second sentence is not admitted;
I. This is more of the above-mentioned reuse of the words from Matthew Garrett’s claim (KB-2024-001270). The Defence and Counterclaim in KB-2024-001270 already deal with this claim in a succinct and complete fashion, so to avoid any doubts or to improve clarity, the analogous response in the Garrett Case supersedes this one. The numbers mentioned in this paragraph are outdated (more than 6 years ago; perhaps by intention, much more recent numbers were published and those were published prominently; this has happened many times since then) and, save that the number of visitors is “substantial” (whatever that means in terms of concrete numbers; there is no numerical definition for this word), the claim is not admitted, maybe even denied, albeit the former makes more sense. To maliciously twist one’s audience size, i.e. the reach or the perceived “success” of an article, as a weakness and as a liability is in fact rather sinister. If many people find particular articles interesting and share them, the most likely explanation is that they find these reliable, plausible, and worth sharing. Instead of negating the accomplishments the Claimant could instead focus on other things.
If one was to mark his homework for originality, would he receive an "F"? If 5RB clients are charged per page, they deserve a considerable discount. This sloppy work is now backfiring on the clients (and on 5RB, to whom it's a liability). Remember that they sent to us 85+ KG of physical legal papers. Thousands of those pages are just binary slop. They don't seem to be checking what they print out, they just "flood the zone" and snow people (including Judges) under volumes of paper. This seems to be a method of theirs, but why should it be tolerated? It can disgrace the entire occupation while the SRA looks the other way (the British government will grill it in 3 days' time). When I told the SRA about this volume of paper they suggested physically sending it to them - a topic we'll cover in the future - as if I can print literally thousands of pages and post those to the SRA (which would not even bother looking at them!).
The problem we have in the UK (as a population, as people) remains largely unsolved. This was yesterday:
Is it OK to take money from corrupt/violent people to cover up what they did by threatening those who merely mention what happened?
The above is very similar to what Brett Wilson LLP did.
What is today's society becoming? Can we tolerate SLAPPs whose purpose is to cover up crime?
Today we discussed CPJ in the context of psychological warfare/torture as well as threats made to family members. In places like central Africa and Iran they do this with physical (direct) torture, in the "polite" kingdom they send people with literal wheelbarrows (and menacing clothes) of accusatory legal papers. I've had relatives of mine doxed by Garrett et al and ugly threats sent from burner accounts (only weeks prior to it I reported to the police that my name had been added to a "hitlist" at a curious time; the police took the matter seriously and I spoke to four officers, who visited my office to take evidence). What sort of people are we dealing with? Maybe they believe this is as "funny" as Garrett publicly boasted his case would be (see screenshot at the top). Graveley begged me and then sent me threats several times (how "extremely generous" of him). Garrett had publicly attacked, stalked, defamed and trolled me since 2012 because I rightly criticised his employer (Red Hat) over things I turned out to be correct about [1, 2] (as was Torvalds, who also got subjected to "Ritual Defamation" or 'lynch mob' brigading in social control media). █
