SLAPP Censorship - Part 62 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Issue Astounding Copy-Paste Masterpiece Asserting Publicly-Accessible Embarrassing Facts Must Remain Hidden
Today's part will be short (but to the point), at least shorter than yesterday's. We believe the following side-by-side comparison says a lot on its own.
They pluralised some words, that's all the junior barrister did for them.
So Garrett and Graveley are basically recycling their text in their complaints. Did they not expect to get caught doing this? Was their barrister at 5RB so exceptionally lazy and sloppy?
Here is my response to Garrett's litigation buddy Graveley as I put it in the counterclaim last July (partly quoting our other counterclaims):
20. Claim not denied. Paragraph 20 merely points out the location of the Defendant. It is not admitted, either.
21. Paragraph 21 is also not denied because it merely asserts – correctly – that the authors and site are based in the UK. This is admitted. Set aside Paragraph 6.
22. This cites Paragraph 6, which asserts a breach. No breach (nor illegal disclosure) was committed and thus the last sentence is denied. It makes a misleading asserting by repeating a prior claim, which was tackled earlier. As noted in the Defence in the Garrett Case in Paragraph 17: “Further or in the alternative, pursuant to s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013, the words complained of were, or formed part of, statements on a matter of public interest and the Defendants reasonably believed that publishing the words complained of was in the public interest.” The same applies to privacy aspects and quoting further from the Garrett Case: “The Defendants reasonably believed that publishing the words complained of was in the public interest”.
23. Paragraph 23 is not admitted. It is a loaded statement.
We'll show a lot more of the same tomorrow. Are Garrett and Graveley twins separated at birth but joined by GNOME and Microsoft? Remember the SLAPPs were funded by third parties. █