SLAPP Censorship - Part 79 Out of 200: They Will Soon Reach the 100 KG (Kilograms) Milestone; Wheelbarrows, Not Justice (Quantity of Legal Papers Sent to Us)
posted by Roy Schestowitz on May 17, 2026,
updated May 17, 2026
It's about the quality, not quantity (unless
your sole aim is to drown out or "flood the
zone")
Whatever you have to say was lost in the sheer quantity of
paper.
Production Versus Reproduction
As a blogger, what I do is write
stuff. I write a lot of stuff. It's what I do. I've done
this for over two decades. What I write isn't random and there are
themes that recur or get revisited. We develop an understanding of
particular topics with participation by others. The ideas can
evolve that way. The ideas are communicated outwards and are a soft
of 'feedback loop'.
To lawyers, printing other people's worthwhile work (or
just sending many random PDFs to printers, calling them
"authorities") gives a false sense of productivity. No, they
didn't contribute even a word to those PDFs, but it gives a sense
of volume. They'd even add a single sentence to a new page just to
increase total page counts (so they can charge more money). These
are widespread issues the general public deserves to know about.
It's also related to LLM slop - a subject we shall tackle some
other day (or month).
Drowning in One's Own Papers
A month ago it was made utterly clear and obviously relevant;
Garrett and Graveley (or their spokesperson) deemed it important to
make excuses (to the judge) for the ludicrous amounts of paper sent
to a modest couple in Manchester, which does not run a business and
does not have legal representation. People who work in law firms
can estimate how many pages make up 100 kilograms. Or even just 10
kilograms.
This isn't about winning a case but about "flooding the zone"
(to borrow a phrase from MAGAts - it's about using sheer quantity
of nonsense to dilute or drown out actual information). In over 2
years we've probably sent no more than a few kilograms of papers
(maybe 1-2 KG), compared to 85+ KG from them. If one
adds up what they sent to the Court, then it's probably close to
130 KG. Who has time to read all this? And why are we even
referring to A4-sized papers (quantifying them) in measures of
metric weight? Some are double-sided! We'll give a practical
and year-old example below (in a nutshell, expecting a judge to go
through about a thousand pages for a short telephone conference; I
provided just a 1.5-page summary, which the judge found
helpful).
Respect for the Court Means Concision
Judges need all the important information to be available before
them. Dumping "books" at them prevents quick comprehension of key
issues.
It might be helpful to take a moment to respond to
misinformation from Garrett without giving it (direct) air time;
Garrett
can barely keep it up (blog and Mastodon uptime is about 80%),
he is
repeatedly gloating and publicly boasting (in social control
media) that he wants to put my wife and I in prison (no worse
than
other threats we've received) and now he publicly admits that
it is extremely unlikely to actually happen (so why put in the
draft order sent to the Court something you deem extremely
unlikely?
Because it's "funny"?). This seems disrespectful to the Court
(which to them is based in another continent). It almost
looks like they are "trolling" the British High Court. They
instrumentalise its existence for harassment purposes. It is
sometimes called "harassment by proxy".
He is correct about that "P thing" (penal) being extremely
unlikely. And he is still bashful about putting his hand on the
Bible and then spouting out contradictory statements under
interrogation (by my wife and I).
Does he consciously lose sight of who's really
at risk now?
In a nutshell, he's just bullying people online
(also defaming
them, e.g. RMS). He has
done this to many people for at least two decades. He's a
paper tiger with a huge ego and Twitter (or similar) account, which
gets leveraged for
what's known as "brigading". This is online
abuse and excusing it as "humour" or "haha, it's funny!" won't
work; it won't amuse judges. It did not abuse the judge at the
trial and even if violent language
amuses you, it won't amuse the people it is
about. To be clear,
Garrett works with violent people.
Honesty and Facts
So let's be very clear here.
It's not us who lied to judges, it is him and Graveley [1,
2] (and
the fall guy of Brett Wilson LLP), so he is merely projecting
and it is them who are at risk from courts, police, and regulators.
This is unfair.
If you want the facts, then follow what we not only say in some
"tweets" but show in length with accompanying evidence.
Also, just to put things in perspective, there's a key thing
that he dreads people finding out about. He knew his lawsuit was
bunk. His actions were a giveaway right from the very start
(2021).
Let's go through easily verifiable history below.
Six or Seven Attempts by Garrett to Settle the Lawsuit He
Himself Started (He Wanted 'Out')
Like Graveley (his
litigation buddy), in 2023, in 2024, and in 2025 Garrett
attempted to settle with us at least 6 times, probably 7 times all
in all. It's feasible to count every time and prove it. He would
rather pretend that we cannot talk about it, but just because he
attaches secrecy clauses to his offers (which we didn't consent to;
such clauses - like press embargoes - are a two-way street) doesn't
mean it didn't happen. We can produce hard proof of it, but it
would be premature and disrespectful to standard protocols. Unlike
what his
hired guns had him believe, offers to settle do make one
look weak, as does the choice of a low-cost barrister and very
low/small court fee (about 1% the money the lawsuit would cost him
all in all). Put another way, it's like in martial arts where you
show all your weaknesses to the opponent, as in this case you show
up for a battle saying in public it would be "funny", you pay
almost bare minimum for a new case (like you don't plan to actually
fight/pursue) and when things get tough you willingly associate
with - and even coordinate with - a Microsofter who was
arrested
for violence against women. All those tactical mistakes add up
and wrinkle like the cheap suit you wear, sir. And yes, I am 100%
permitted to point out the settlement offers in public. Likewise, I
cannot 'unsee' (based on the disclosures) that you communicated
with a Canadian who committed cybercrimes against my wife (several
cases against this person in the police).
Print, Print, Print. The Only Thing You Know.
Words are cheap, papers and printouts are cheaper (mostly
printing my own words, which makes it look like the copyright bears
'teeth'), not to mention thousands of pages of binary slop
that would be of no use in trial but merely fill up large carton
boxes. It's about optics. We'll write about this in the future. You
clearly aren't checking what you print out!
Garrett Touched the Bible
Does it hurt when I say it? Well, unlike Garrett, I
don't use some really rude and child-unfriendly language (which
this site won't even repeat). His own mouth has been his own worst
enemy and the judge in the trial took note of his rude
communication style. And yes, he did in fact touch the
Bible, everyone there saw it, he just doesn't want people online to
know that (it served to un-affirm his claims about rejecting
religion). So ouch, touché. One cannot change history with a
"tweet". Checking the Techrights site all day long
(cognitive burden), trying to ambush us by nitpicking minor
details, won't change history. Transcripts aren't CCTV footage.
Stop lying.
Garrett Supports SLAPP and Chose a SLAPP Maximalist Law
Firm
Meanwhile his hired guns in London are trying to interject their
own "misleading narrative", wherein the victims are people who
strangle women and the real problem is bloggers who mention that.
Based on this
new report ("Top libel lawyers ‘killed off’ legislation to
protect public interest reporting"): "Claimant lawyers
argued SLAPP debate is based on "misleading narrative"" (they are
projecting).
The most vocal (or one of the most vocal) firm in support of
SLAPPs is Brett Wilson LLP. They keep blasting politicians who
speak about SLAPPs as a problem.
From what we can gather, the main skill of the above hired guns
is reading, saving, then printing my work. Then sending a judge
about 1,000 pages for a one-hour meeting, as noted in
my counterclaim last July:
Appendix VIII: Unfair Lawyering Up
Against a Litigant in Person
The following list is not
complete, but it covers the bulk of the papers that Brett Wilson
LLP threw at me and at the Judge for the
Graveley Case:
-
i.Letter of
Claim: 10 pages
-
ii.The
publication: 3 pages
-
iii.Schedule
of further publications: 191 pages
-
iv.Claim form:
4 pages
-
v.Continuation
Sheet to the Claim Form: 2 pages
-
vi.Assorted
letters after that: about 10 pages
-
vii. Extortion
attempt: 2 pages
-
viii.Lawsuit
letter: 1 page
-
ix.Schedule of
further publications: 191 pages
-
x.Claim form:
4 pages
-
xi.Continuation
Sheet to the Claim Form: 2 pages
-
xii. Particulars
of Claim: 10 pages
-
xiii.Response
Pack: 7 pages
-
xiv.Assorted
letters after that: about 20 pages
-
xv. Bundle
for Hearing: 533 pages
-
xvi.N260: 5
pages
-
xvii.Skeleton
arguments: 8 pages (2 added by me)
-
xviii.Index of
authorities: 290 pages (21 added by me)
-
1.That's just
only up until the Hearing (there has been more since), not even
counting any defence. If one adds pertinent E-mails to the above,
then the grand total is around 1,400 pages.
-
2.How many times in the past did a law firm push close to
1,400 pages to
a Defendant and to the Court before a defence was even served? This seems
absurd and abusive. The very facilitation
of such a case is also abusive, possibly
amounting to a misuse of licence if not professional
misconduct.
Based on a communication they sent for the Serial Strangler from
Microsoft some days ago, we might soon exceed 100KG of legal
papers (sent our way). If they
go out of business, which
seems inevitable (income drought), at least they'll be able to
boast about breaking "paper records" - whatever that even means.
Who would be impressed by this?
The toner industry?
Couriers? █
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) |
| 2026-05-16 |
SLAPP Censorship - Part 78 Out of 200: Slandering Me for Saying the
Truth About Graveley and Garrett's Abuse of Processes, Stacking
Dockets |
