SLAPP Censorship - Part 78 Out of 200: Slandering Me for Saying the Truth About Graveley and Garrett's Abuse of Processes, Stacking Dockets

posted by Roy Schestowitz on May 16, 2026

Is it normal for lawyers to verbally attack (for many months) people who correctly point out procedural and ethical breaches of said lawyers?

Over a year ago our solicitor Mark explained to us (over the telephone) that when he exposed actual crimes committed by Rupert Murdoch's media (eventually people sent to prison) and was showing evidence of those crimes they threatened, illegally spied on him, and kept throwing very insulting words at him (notably "conspiracy theorist"), including what he deemed to be antisemitic slurs/dog whistles; we've already extensively covered what seems like strong antisemitism in Brett Wilson LLP [1, 2], but we'll cover this more properly and thoroughly in the future; Brett Wilson LLP's biggest "repeat client" is an alleged high-profile Hamas sympathiser; compare his words to Garrett's and remember they're not in a financial position to turn down money (local solicitors told us more than 2 years ago that this firm was notorious and had become known for taking as clients some of the worst people - those whom no other solicitor/firm would wish to associate with).

On at least a dozen occasions Brett Wilson LLP did the same thing to me; it didn't surprise me given how they had treated my wife and still treat her this year (Brett Wilson LLP strongly despises women, it's just in the firm's genes; it's not that women don't work there, but their roles are always submissive and they too leave their macho employer).

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) have obligations to ethical or moral standards, they're not there to relay lies for a fee, certainly not for violent Americans who don't deny their violent past (they got charged). The same goes for lawyers regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which mostly exists in name and now openly admits it would only intervene when it's too late. Like... if people die? These people think violence is a joke. They've long been combative, but threats to "shut down" my "existence" are too much.

So this series represents a major effort to reform the system so as to actually do justice, not just to make money. It's also about protecting vulnerable people, seeing a disturbing past pattern.

This month it's made crystal clear that Garrett and Graveley are in effect "the same case". They have a lot in common. Garrett's submissions to the Court are almost all about Graveley (some are purely about Graveley). He already admitted they had spoken before Graveley started. And this - inter alia - implies likely perjury (not just regarding the funding for a lawsuit they cannot afford). To be clear, in case they're found to have committed perjury or contempt of court for repeatedly lying to several judges, they already have their fall guy (assistant who signs witness statements all the time but by his own admission proxies his superiors' position) to "throw under the bus". Their clients are in America, so holding them accountable for perjury or contempt of court (worse than abuse of process) is challenging, as they can just avoid coming to the UK (they're unlikely to be extradited here over civil litigation matters).

These are the sorts of things British taxpayers ought to talk about. Such abusive behaviour is costing the British taxpayers a lot of money.

In January 2025 a judge ordered Garrett to put in his defence after we had sued him [1, 2] (he was not amused anymore; lying is a risk) and only days later Graveley suddenly showed up, making threats. It was not a coincidence. Similarly, last month just 44 hours before a Garrett hearing Graveley reared his ugly head again, and did so after about 6 months of complete silence. They are coordinating this "tag-team" act even as recently as days ago (connected actions, only a few hours apart). When I brought up this subject with their hired guns a year ago they simply resorted to name-calling and changing the subject, focusing on how similar or dissimilar the claims were (the text was ~70% the same) instead of the clear coordination of these two. The Court has since then (since last year) de facto merged the two cases, recognising they are inseparable. It updates them in tandem (Garrett's actions are added to Garveley's case). From my counterclaim dated July 2025:

---

Appendix VII: Merging Related Cases

 

1. A.Prior to the filing of this Defence, Brett Wilson LLP was asked to agree to combine the “twin” case with this one, in light of the abundant evidence of parallels. 

    

2. B.Before  Brett Wilson LLP examined the evidence contained therein it turned down this proposal. 

    

3. C.The following is the message sent by Roy to  Brett Wilson LLP: 

 

Dear Brett Wilson

No doubt you have received notice from the Court about trial dates.

It is clear that this case has a considerable overlap with that of your other American client, Garrett (KB-2024-001270). After all you offered that you'd drop the case if I settled by deleting articles, just like Garrett did, even directly.

I do not know the correct procedure, but I need to refer to each one in the other and cross examine your clients about the collusion between them. Just because you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean that there is not a conspiracy. I understand that both civil and criminal law recognises that conspiracies exist.

Are you willing to agree to the consolation or consolidation of both your cases? I am going to allege the conspiracy between Mr Garrett and Mr Graveley in my defence so they will both need to be there and the Disclosure will have considerable overlaps.

Consolidating both cases so they can be tried together will save a lot of Court time and even be cheaper for both your client.

As you are aware, Mr Garrett and Mr Graveley are professionally and personally connected, they speak about one another in public (even before these cases), and are both represented by the same lawyer and the same barrister.

 

1. Brett Wilson LLP’s reply dated over a week later:

 

We write further to your email of 24 June 2025.
Our client Alex Graveley does not agree to consolidate this matter with claim KB-2024-001270. The
claims are unrelated. Different issues will be traversed at trial in each case.
As you are yet to file and serve a Defence in this claim and have refused to engage in any
meaningful correspondence, our client has limited insight into what issues are in dispute.
However, you have repeatedly stated - including at the case management hearing on
18 June 2025 - that the allegations you have made against Mr Graveley are true/accurate. Thus,
we assume that the trial is largely going to be preoccupied with you attempting to prove that the
allegations are true. The allegations you have made against Mr Garrett are quite different and,
even on your own case, there does not appear to be any overlap in the factual matrix.
In the circumstances there is no reason for the two claims being tried together. Your allegations
that Mr Garrett and Mr Gravely are (i) in cahoots, (ii) advancing SLAPPs, and/or (iii) acting on behalf
of (and/or are being funded by) Microsoft., are conspiracy theories, which do not justify
consolidating unrelated claims. If you genuinely believe either claim is an abuse of process (and
believe you have evidence of the same) then you should take legal advice as to whether it is
appropriate to apply for either or both claims to be struck out. To be clear, we do not encourage
such action and will be seeking our client’s costs in the event that such an application is made (and
inevitably dismissed).

You say that you will
“need to refer to each one in the other...”. To the extent that there is an
intention to refer to or rely on
documents from one claim in the other claim (which is not clear
from your email), please ensure that you comply fully with Part 31.22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
We look forward to receiving service of your Defence by not later than 4.00pm on 16 July 2025 in
accordance with Master Gidden’s order.

 

A similar message was sent at the exact same time (17:01) on behalf of the “twin”, the Garrett Case:

 

We write further to Dr Schestowitz’s email of 24 June 2025, requesting Mr Garrett’s consent to
consolidate this matter with claim KB-2024-3529.
Mr Garrett does not agree to consolidation. This matter is progressing towards trial in October
2025, and consolidation at this stage will plainly prejudice the trial date.
The trial in Mr Garrett’s claim is largely going to be preoccupied with you attempting prove that
the allegations are true and attempting to make out your counterclaim. The allegations you have
made against Mr Gravely are quite different and, even on your own case, there does not appear to
be any overlap in the factual matrix.
In the circumstances there is no reason for the two claims being tried together. Your allegations
that Mr Garrett and Mr Gravely are (i) in cahoots, (ii) advancing SLAPPs, and/or (iii) acting on behalf
of (and/or are being funded by) Microsoft., are conspiracy theories, which do not justify
consolidating unrelated claims. If you genuinely believe either claim is an abuse of process (and
believe you have evidence of the same) then you should take legal advice as to whether it is
appropriate to apply for either or both claims to be struck out. To be clear, we do not encourage
such action and will be seeking our client’s costs in the event that such an application is made (and
inevitably dismissed).
Dr Schestowitz says that he will
“need to refer to each one in the other...”. To the extent that there
is an intention to refer to or rely on
documents from one claim in the other claim (which is not
clear from Dr Schestowitz’s email), please ensure that you comply fully with Part 31.22 of the Civil
Procedure Rules.

 

The position maintained here is that the cases should be combined. There is no reason to waste courts’ time dealing with cases that have so many parallels, not just personnel-wise but also the substance of the claims, which were mostly reused. As noted above, the correlation between the cases needs to be discussed orally by all those involved, before a judge, with all the parties present.

 

---

Their replies did not age well. Months later their client swore on the Bible and then admitted, after being evasive but poorly handling repeated questions (I cross-examined him for two days), that he and Graveley had the whole thing coordinated. It is plausible that their coordination began in 2021, i.e. around the time the Microsofter got arrested and "his best friend" lost his job as GitHub's CEO. █

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)
2026-04-22	SLAPP Censorship - Part 54 Out of 200: Alex-Matt/Automate Twin Cases, Separated at Birth, Drafted by Brett Wilson LLP and 5RB
2026-04-23	SLAPP Censorship - Part 55 Out of 200: Strangled Women, Charged for Strangulation, Cannot Find a Job Now (After Microsoft)
2026-04-24	SLAPP Censorship - Part 56 Out of 200: 5RB and Brett Wilson LLP's Copy-Paste Machination for Garrett and Graveley
2026-04-25	SLAPP Censorship - Part 57 Out of 200: 5RB and Brett Wilson LLP Made the Garrett and Graveley Particulars of Claims a Lot Like Photocopies!
2026-04-26	SLAPP Censorship - Part 58 Out of 200: 5RB and Brett Wilson LLP Helped Garrett and Graveley Make Equivalent of GAFAM NDAs Superficially 'Enforceable' in the UK, Using Threats
2026-04-27	SLAPP Censorship - Part 59 Out of 200: Mentioning the Fact Alex Graveley Arrested and Charged for Strangulation in Texas is "Reckless" and "Malicious", According to His 'Hired Guns' in London
2026-04-28	SLAPP Censorship - Part 60 Out of 200: Talking About Corruption at Microsoft and Arrest for Strangulation is "Malice"
2026-04-29	SLAPP Censorship - Part 61 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Must Understand That Reporting Women's Issues in the United States of America (“the US”) is Not Impermissible
2026-04-30	SLAPP Censorship - Part 62 Out of 200: Garrett and Graveley Issue Astounding Copy-Paste Masterpiece Asserting Publicly-Accessible Embarrassing Facts Must Remain Hidden
2026-05-01	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)
2026-05-02	SLAPP Censorship - Part 64 Out of 200: Not Amused by Repeated Threats (to "Shut Down" My "Existence" While Mentioning My Wife Too)
2026-05-03	SLAPP Censorship - Part 65 Out of 200: Graveley and Garrett Claims Are Word-by-Word Similar (They Also Collaborated All Along)
2026-05-04	SLAPP Censorship - Part 66 Out of 200: Alex Graveley Did Illegal Things, Then Asserted Mentioning Those Illegal Things is Privacy Violation
2026-05-05	SLAPP Censorship - Part 67 Out of 200: Graveley and Garrett Claims Against My Wife and I Assert 'Distress', But It Was Just a Copy-Pasted Template (Mechanical Crocodile Tears)
2026-05-06	SLAPP Censorship - Part 68 Out of 200: Based on Their Particulars of Claims, Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett Seem Like the Same Person (Exactly Same Words Used, Sloppily Recycled)
2026-05-07	SLAPP Censorship - Part 69 Out of 200: Microsoft's Graveley Strangles, Gets Arrested, Charged, Then Asks for Apology From Those Who Reported It by Recycling Garrett's Plea for Apology
2026-05-08	SLAPP Censorship - Part 70 Out of 200: Microsoft's Graveley Injunction Request 100% the Same as Garrett's (Pure 'Copy-paste', Not Even a Word or Single Character Changed!)
2026-05-09	SLAPP Censorship - Part 71 Out of 200: 5RB Barristers Made Tens of Thousands of Pounds by Changing From Plural to Singular for Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett
2026-05-10	SLAPP Censorship - Part 72 Out of 200: Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett Signed Documents That Hold Them Accountable to Truth and Liable for Lies
2026-05-11	SLAPP Censorship - Part 73 Out of 200: Microsoft's Graveley and Garrett Remain Closely Connected in May 2026 ("Tag-Teaming" Against Bloggers in Another Continent)
2026-05-12	SLAPP Censorship - Part 74 Out of 200: The Basis of My Lawsuit Against Alex Graveley, Who Helps Garrett Stack the Docket in Another Continent
2026-05-12	SLAPP Censorship - Part 75 Out of 200: All True, All Verifiable, Unlike Garrett and Graveley Lying to at Least Three High Court Judges About What They Did
2026-05-14	SLAPP Censorship - Part 76 Out of 200: The Problem With the United Kingdom Allowing Americans to File Lawsuits by Proxy (Relayed by "Hired Guns")
2026-05-15	SLAPP Censorship - Part 77 Out of 200: They Never Knew How to Handle Women (Except to Attack Them)