SLAPP Censorship - Part 63 Out of 200: Graveley as a Stripped-Down Version of Garrett in the Particulars of Claim (5RB Barrister Could Do This in One Minute)
Further to last night's example of a "copy-paste" masterpiece (cheaply-made and recycled claims), consider the following side-by-side comparison:
Lazily and sloppily, it looks like the barrister took Garrett's claims and tweaked them a little (shortened) for Graveley. The public needs to be aware of such practices, which in this case implicate 5RB Barristers and Brett Wilson LLP in London (they did this in tandem for two Americans; they even got their client's name wrong!). 5RB Barristers and Brett Wilson LLP are currently being sued by their own clients [1, 2, 3] (case updated 3 days ago, still progressing towards trial).
Third parties bore some of the legal bills. Based on the timing and cross-examination (yours truly as the examiner), the aim was to drain out our legal budget after we had sued Garrett for harassment [1, 2] (we could also sue him for libel, but he was hiding in the US and it's hard to enforce such judgments in the US, according to our British lawyers at the time).
In my counterclaim against Graveley this is how I responded to the above:
24. Paragraph 24 is is denied on the basis that the data was in the public domain already.
25. Unless Paragraph 25 pertains to copyright violations – that would be an entirely different case that rests on Fair Use doctrine - this claim is denied. There was no breach of UK GDPR.
1. 25.1 is denied. It contains many loaded statements and presumption of the author’s guilt where the purpose of publication was to demonstrate somebody’s guilt.
2. This is denied for the same reasons. See the Garrett Case for parallels in the Defence.
3. This is denied as the notion that it is “excessive” when it was imperative to remind people of the core issues. It is often necessary to repeat or cite supportive evidence so as to avoid claims of unsupported assertions. It is revealing that frequency of publication is resorted to as a basis for complaint as the nature of the publication does not in any way breach the UK GDPR.
We'll show some more rather blatant examples of "copypasta" (copy-paste slang) tomorrow. █
Published last year: Microsoft's Serial Strangler and Matthew J. Garrett Join Forces in Trying to Gag Techrights (for Exposing Microsoft Corruption and Crimes Against Women) | Confirmed: The Two Microsofters Who Filed Two Cases Against Me Were Collaborating | In Systematic Contempt of the British High Court, Brett Wilson LLP Spent Two Years Lying to Courts and Breaking Rules Against Us