SLAPP Censorship - Part 54 Out of 200: Alex-Matt/Automate Twin Cases, Separated at Birth, Drafted by Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 22, 2026,
updated Apr 22, 2026

In the previous part we showed that a lady left her job and finally (belatedly) admitted so almost 6 months later. It's the lady who had worked on the Graveley case (he helped Garrett attack our legal budget a few weeks after we had countersued Garrett [1, 2]; Garrett swore on the Bible and admitted to me they had spoken).

"Please stay safe," a reader has since told us, "and continue fighting the good fight for computing freedom in the press."

This is what we do. We won't be stopped by a couple of vicious Americans (one arrested as a Microsoft employee for strangling women, one accused by his own spouse this year of being "a rapist"). If anything, their attacks on us merit a proper response, both at an official level (regulators included) and public level (informing people). At the end truth and justice will find their way. Not only millionaires can eternally control narratives. That's one lesson of the Jeffrey Epstein scandals in the US (there is "a whitewash is on the way" as an associate has just alerted us).

Lately we've been speaking a lot about the "copypasta" (copy-paste) machine from 5RB. I saw him in person 7 days ago but avoided eye contact (he was only in my distant field of vision). His own client, Matthew J. Fox, wasn't there. He didn't attend a hearing about his own case (that he started 24 months earlier). Does he mind that his litigation buddy Graveley basically replicated a lot of the same text that he had paid a lot of money for (or third parties paid for)? Does he not realise how this discredits all involved (law firm, barrister, 5RB as a firm, Graveley, and himself)? Did he truly believe that the ugly truth would never come out? Or that transcripts of him being interrogated would not backfire on him (at his own expense)?

Here is today's installment of Graveley-Garrett "copypasta" (copy-paste) from 5RB:

How very original, right? Very uncreative. Here is my response from my counterclaim (2025), with the corresponding paragraph numbers:

---

 

 

1. 10.The first sentence in Paragraph 10 is denied. The reputation of Mr. Graveley has been bad for many years and his victims spoke of what he had done to them in public before Techrights even wrote about that. The Complaining Party, or the Claimant, stretches or misinterprets what was written, distorts the dates etc. so as to promote a narrative wherein it is the fault of Techrights – rather than his own actions – that his reputation is so poor. 

    

   1. 1.Put another way, instead of blaming oneself for one's own actions one resorts to projection, i.e. seeking to blame people who merely speak about it, including the victims. The Web site thejc.com explained an equally frivolous case between Mohammed Hijab and The Spectator (and its associate editor, Douglas Murray). It was related to the Leicester riots. Mohammed Hijab, it said, claimed an article  caused him “to suffer, damage to his reputation, distress, humiliation, embarrassment, hurt and injury to his feelings. Lawyers for Murray and The Spectator, led by Mark Lewis of Patron Law, have hit back against Hijab’s claims," to quote the report. "They argue that as a public figure who regularly engages in contentious debates, Hijab’s reputation is already subject to scrutiny. Any “adverse consequences” to the YouTuber stem from his own behaviour, not the article, they state." 

    

   1. 2.Similarly, when one engages in copyright abuses, abuse against women, has serious addiction problems and his own colleagues doubt his sanity and try to distance themselves from him, it would be absurd to hold accountable the person who merely points that out, based on perceived harm to his feelings or ego. 

 

 

1. 1. 1. i.Paragraph 10.1 is denied, sans the part about the seriousness of what he did. He himself destroyed “his personal and professional integrity.” It would be wrong to blame his own actions on reporters. The records of his arrest and imprisonment were neither sealed nor private, it was all publicly accessible for everybody on a government Web site, without even needing to log in. Attacking the reporter for mentioning those files is as ludicrous as suing the police for “libel” because their law enforcement destroyed “his personal and professional integrity.” Instead of seeking to hold himself accountable for his own actions (which he even spoke about in his own Web site!) he has been busy attacking his victims and proxying via a firm in London his attacks against those who merely reported what happened, based on extensive experience covering that part of the business at Microsoft and surrounding technical and legal matters (e.g. copyright infringement). It is a matter of public record already that he begged the Defendant. Repeated begging implies realisation of guilt, not necessarily remorse and certainly not innocence. Stating that those facts about oneself have harmed personal and professional ambitions does not in any way pass liability to a reporter. It is also quite revealing that his lawyer seems to be leaving, based on records in at least 3 Web sites. Companies House serves to show that this is part of an ongoing trend (staff reductions each year), not to mention that Brett Wilson LLP had no media lawsuits this year, external staff was being brought in "on loan" (based on metadata; they are not good at IT), and advertisements in several sites for the same role as his lawyer. Is he stepping away from an abusive litigation campaign gone awry? Is it because the regulators have stepped in? Whatever it is, the case seem to have no wind in its sails and the remnants of the case mostly distract the Defendant from the Garrett Case. Maybe this is exactly the goal. Techrights wrote about this matter a great deal; the articles do not focus on the law firms but on the key issues (which may casually name the firm but not individual staff), it is all factual, and there are two primary reasons for publishing it: 1) help peers and journalists who are subjected to similarly abusive litigation; 2) raise awareness of the apparent extortion to render it a lot less effective and explain the full context. 

      2. ii.Paragraph 10.2 is denied and it also cites reused text that was almost copied verbatim from the “twin” case of the other American client. This is blatantly obvious to see, even based on metadata alone, e.g.  times of communications for the two clients (see Appendix V), which are a giveaway as to how one is used to exert pressure for the other (in both directions, even minutes apart or few hours apart across business days). 

      3. iii.Paragraphs 10.3 repeats a false paragraph, which was hitherto denied repeatedly. Mr. Graveley was not a “prominent individual” in any field, except a mediocre programmer who cannot properly code and was sacked a lot by many companies. GitHub CoPilot helps people commit plagiarism with help of LLMs, with neither permission nor attribution, basically disregarding laws. He never had “good reputation” as asserted by this paragraph, he was an addict with  serious problems  and anger issues. This mentions “cutting-edge technology”, but Tomboy was never innovative and subsequent work, including LLMs, was just “state-of-the-art plagiarism” with the phony guise of “Fair Use” (which is widely challenged, there are many ongoing lawsuits). Much of the processing wasn’t even done in-house but by an external company. The whole thing was not an achievement, just a very legally dubious experiment which caused and still causes considerable losses. This paragraph is denied. 

         ---

         Just wait. There's lots more. Lots more copy-pasting, uncreative construction of claims with minimal effort for two Americans who are connected and are more interested in attacking the publisher to save face, not to salvage their reputation by good deeds. Perhaps their solicitor K.C. (not the legal title) sought actual redemption and followed the Cross, not the dagger. █

         Previously:

         2026-03-03	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 1 Out of 200: Claim No. KB-2024-001270 in a Nutshell
         2026-03-04	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 2 Out of 200: Detailed Timeline From 2012 (Attack on Reporters That Question Restricted Boot) to 2024 (Lawsuit Against Reporter and His Wife in Another Continent)
         2026-03-05	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 3 Out of 200: A More In-Depth Breakdown
         2026-03-06	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 4 Out of 200: Rianne’s Version of Events and Narrative
         2026-03-07	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 5 Out of 200: Clearly Not a Security Professional/Expert, Only Ever Pretending to be One
         2026-03-08	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 6 Out of 200: Intentionally Misnaming Women, People Who Offered to Testify That They Too Had Been Subjected to Similar Abuse
         2026-03-09	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 7 Out of 200: Like With the Serial Strangler From Microsoft, Misuse of UK-GDPR to Try to Hide Embarrassing Facts
         2026-03-10	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 8 Out of 200: Gross Misuse of UKGDPR to Protect the Agenda of American Back Doors (Mass Surveillance)
         2026-03-11	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 9 Out of 200: 5RB Barrister Does Not Even Know the Name of His Own Client (That He Was Paid Well Over $200,000 to 'Speak' or 'Cover' for)
         2026-03-12	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 10 Out of 200: Showing Public Tweets is Not a Privacy Violation, But This Isn't About Justice, It's About Censorship
         2026-03-13	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 11 Out of 200: Cannot Censor His Spouse, Accusations Are Repeated Today
         2026-03-14	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 12 Out of 200: Months Ahead of Serial Strangler From Microsoft Who Helped Double the Lawsuits (Funded by Third Parties) as 'Revenge' for Exposing Crimes
         2026-03-15	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 13 Out of 200: Abuse of Process to Make False Accusations of UKGDPR Violations
         2026-03-16	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 14 Out of 200: The Abusive Cases of the Serial Strangler From Microsoft and His Litigation Buddy Garrett Did Cause "Serious Harm"
         2026-03-17	Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 14 Out of 200: Men Who Strangle Women (and Worse) Trying to Force Us to Write Public Apologies to These Men
         2026-03-18	SLAPP Censorship - Part 15 Out of 200: Background and Particulars of Truth Regarding Techrights and Tux Machines
         2026-03-19	SLAPP Censorship - Part 16 Out of 200: Detailing the Actors and Explaining Techrights' Own Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Network
         2026-03-20	SLAPP Censorship - Part 17 Out of 200: A Long Track Record of Online Abuse, Then Choosing a Low-Cost Law Firm to Muzzle People Who Have Illuminated This Abuse for Over a Decade
         2026-03-21	SLAPP Censorship - Part 18 Out of 200: Third Parties Funding Attacks on the Messengers, Lawsuits Against GAFAM-Critical Voices That Uphold Real National Security
         2026-03-22	SLAPP Censorship - Part 19 Out of 200: They Were Ill-prepared for Tough Questions in Cross-Examination
         2026-03-23	SLAPP Censorship - Part 20 Out of 200: All Roads Lead to Rome and to GAFAM Funding
         2026-03-24	SLAPP Censorship - Part 21 Out of 200: It's About Behaviour Online, Not How Much Money From Shadowy Third Parties Gets Spent on Lawyers and Two Barristers
         2026-03-24	SLAPP Censorship - Part 22 Out of 200: When You Complain People Impersonate You in IRC (But You Yourself Impersonate People in IRC and Lock Them Out of Their IRC Handles)
         2026-03-25	SLAPP Censorship - Part 23 Out of 200: We Were Right All Along (for 2 Years) About Third Party Funding and Willingness to 'Break the Bank' in Pursuit of "Revenge"
         2026-03-26	SLAPP Censorship - Part 24 Out of 200: The Failed Effort by Brett Wilson LLP to Strike Out My Lawsuit and My Wife's Lawsuit Against Garrett (the Master Allowed Our Lawsuits to Proceed)
         2026-03-27	SLAPP Censorship - Part 25 Out of 200: That Time Matthew J. Garrett Got Temporarily Banned/Suspended From Twitter
         2026-03-28	SLAPP Censorship - Part 26 Out of 200: Asking for Documents and Information You Already Have, Even Letters and E-mails That You Yourself Sent!
         2026-03-29	SLAPP Censorship - Part 27 Out of 200: Using the Tor Network to Hide From Consequences
         2026-03-30	SLAPP Censorship - Part 28 Out of 200: Facing Consequences for Impersonation and Worse
         2026-03-31	SLAPP Censorship - Part 29 Out of 200: Violent Language Won't Go Away When You Use It in Your Site, Blog, and Social Control Media
         2026-04-01	SLAPP Censorship - Part 30 Out of 200: The Time We Reported Abuse to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and It Was Escalated to Its Cybercrime Unit
         2026-04-02	SLAPP Censorship - Part 31 Out of 200: Speaking About 20+ Years of Alleged Harassment/Defamation and High-Profile 'Targets' of Garrett
         2026-04-03	SLAPP Censorship - Part 32 Out of 200: Garrett Made Spurious Requests (Later Withdrawn) the Same Week Someone He Later Spoke to by E-mail Sent Threats to Our Webhost
         2026-04-03	SLAPP Censorship - Part 33 Out of 200: Garrett Sued by My Wife and I, Then His Microsoft Acquaintance Files Another Lawsuit and Our Webhost Receives Legal Threats Too
         2026-04-04	SLAPP Censorship - Part 34 Out of 200: The Necessity of Transparency, Illuminating Garrett's and Graveley's 'Tag-Team' Act, Misusing the British Docket (From Far Away in America) in Efforts to Hide Bad Behaviour
         2026-04-05	SLAPP Censorship - Part 35 Out of 200: How to Make ~10,000 Pound Sterling (13,220.50 United States Dollars) by Copy-Pasting and Editing 10 Pages
         2026-04-06	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)
         2026-04-07	SLAPP Censorship - Part 37 Out of 200: The Correct Suspicion Garrett and Graveley Were Collaborating in Overseas Litigation Against Critics
         2026-04-08	SLAPP Censorship - Part 38 Out of 200: Advertisement or £10,000+ Classified Ad in the Form of Court Filing in Another Continent
         2026-04-08	SLAPP Censorship - Part 39 Out of 200: Recycled Text for Garrett and Graveley (Buy One, Get One Free?)
         2026-04-09	SLAPP Censorship - Part 40 Out of 200: Putting Forth Frivolous Claim Only a Few Days Before Running Out of Time (12 Months)
         2026-04-10	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
         2026-04-10	SLAPP Censorship - Part 42 Out of 200: Getting the Very Basic Technical Concepts Very Wrong, or Where Miscomprehension Begets "Plausible Deniability"
         2026-04-11	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)
         2026-04-12	SLAPP Censorship - Part 44 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley 'Copypasta' Sunday (Copy-Paste, Add One Word, Change 'T' to 't')
         2026-04-13	SLAPP Censorship - Part 45 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Cases Inherently the Same, Their Legal Team Can Barely Even Distinguish (Full Timeline)
         2026-04-14	SLAPP Censorship - Part 46 Out of 200: Alex Graveley's Attorney Rick Cofer Did Not Deny That Graveley Had Strangled Women; He Did, However, Pay Local Officials
         2026-04-14	SLAPP Censorship - Part 47 Out of 200: British Courts Are Not Censorship Offices for Americans Funded by Affluent Third Parties
         2026-04-16	SLAPP Censorship - Part 48 Out of 200: Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB Copy-Pasting Bogus Claims for Violent Americans (Microsoft) Who Tell Women to Kill Themselves
         2026-04-17	SLAPP Censorship - Part 49 Out of 200: Two Americans, One Case, Recycled for Low Budget at Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB Barristers
         2026-04-18	SLAPP Censorship - Part 50 Out of 200: The Time Staff of Law Firm Burgess Mee Was Showing Up in Letters Sent for a Serial Strangler From Microsoft
         2026-04-19	SLAPP Censorship - Part 51 Out of 200: On Perjury and What It Means to Take Third-Party Funding to Attack Reporter and His Family (in Another Continent)
         2026-04-20	SLAPP Censorship - Part 52 Out of 200: Phil Golding Appointed Bar Standards Board (BSB) Chief, Misogyny Must End
         2026-04-21	SLAPP Censorship - Part 53 Out of 200: The Lying Solicitor of Alex Graveley Left Brett Wilson LLP Only Days or Few Weeks After the Garrett Trial (Attended by Almost Their Entire Office/Team)