Brigading Against Women - Part I - Bypassing the Legal System by Threatening Companies in Another Continent
Courts are not "funny" and judges are not jesters for "lols"
Companies that host Web sites are not liable for the stuff they host in the same way a party or a night club cannot be held accountable for some misbehaving guest (not staff) that comes along. Suppose somebody enters a night club and abuses a woman; assuming the doorman (usually man) kicks out this person, holding the night club liable would be hard. The club owner would argue that what needed to be done was indeed done, with precautions taken as well. The correct action to take is hold the misbehaving person accountable, not the club owner. There are well established rules in this respect, with ISPs and webhosts reasonably well protected. We'll cover the legal basis later in the series.
Last year, during cross-examination, Garrett admitted to me (after he had sworn on the Bible; he had chosen to do so but was not required to) that he kept contacting companies to take sites and content down. I asked him how many times he had done this (to various different parties) and he responded directly that he could not even remember or count because it happened many times (he gave only a rough estimate/tally). I have the full transcripts. He also didn't deny that he had contacted my ISP, Rianne's ISP, our previous webhost, and the current webhost. He demanded takedowns. We have the E-mails that he sent to them. Those are authentic.
But Garrett isn't the sole person doing so. He is (and was) working in tandem with an individual known as Lozza. He also included additional evidence to that effect in his bundle of evidence (disclosures), not just vindicating us but also cementing what we had long said (and shown). Put another way, Garrett is "brigading" online and pressuring companies (some as large as British Telecom, BT) to muzzle critics or people he disagrees with. Meanwhile, Lozza misuses a system in another country to 'harass' companies in a foreign continent while intentionally supplying fake addresses to make it seem like British companies and/or British people are in fact based in Canada.
Thankfully, however, this system has caught up (or woke up) and made up its mind about Lozza. We'll cover this in the series and then cover an example of the modus operandi.
A year ago we told the story about the relevance of the timing (it is legally significant). Suppose you're a British cop and you are receiving a false report from America. What happens if the report is false? Will you go to America and arrest the fraudulent reporter? If you cannot do this, then why entertain that report in the first place?
Similarly, why would the Canadian system entertain a toxic harasser who issued false complaints with fabricated addresses?
"I found some more documents that refer to Lozza," someone told us in relation to this page. Quoting: "[18] The applicant cites Lozza v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2018 HRTO 1768 (“Lozza”) where there were issues of credibility and the Tribunal found, at para. 5, that it was not clear at the summary hearing stage that if the applicant’s version of events were to ultimately found to be true, that the Application would have no reasonable prospect of success."
Also: "[25] In sum, I consider that in a summary hearing, the applicant’s version of events is assumed to be true, and the respondent’s version is not weighed against the applicant’s version. Therefore, I find that in this case, as in Lozza, the ultimate determination will, to some extent, hinge on credibility."
Notice what goes on there.
Here's another one: "[15] With respect to their oral evidence, I acknowledge that sometimes the only evidence available to an applicant is their own testimony. In Lozza v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2018 HRTO 1768 where there were issues of credibility, the Tribunal found, at para. 5, that it was not clear at the summary hearing stage that if the applicant’s version of events were to ultimately found to be true, that the Application would have no reasonable prospect of success."
They basically say, politely, that Lozza is a liar.
Another one: "[7] A summary hearing of this Application was held by videoconference on January 10, 2024. In the Interim Decision, I noted that in this case, as in Lozza v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2018 HRTO 1768, the ultimate determination would, to some extent, hinge on credibility. Therefore, I found that I could not dismiss the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code and directed that the Registrar schedule a merits hearing."
That's just from 2024, not 2025-26. We've not checked anything later than this. We're certain there's a lot more, but it does not need to be an exhaustive list.
"They're citing Lozza in precedent," we're told. "They found Lozza to be non-credible. So they refer to Lozza's failed cases. This is hilarious. Lozza has become such a failure that they cite Lozza as precedent for how to dispose of a case when they encounter a bullshit artist. I didn't know Lozza was that egregious that they laugh and cite him on other people's failures. I just figured you'd get a kick out of that. Such a moron that precedent was indeed set, for an entire country."
The Canadian taxpayers must now foot the bill for a lunatic who lies to courts, just like the "hired guns" we deal with routinely lie to the British High Court.
Lozza "is such a moron," we're told, that "they've cited "Lozza" at least 4 times in other cases [in 2024] on how to dispose of a nutcase that's brought them complete shit. It's hilarious. They did not release all of the correspondence, but they said Lozza told them [Lozza] filed the complaint against the police because Lozza had gone crazy... because Lozza had been smoking weed. So they cite this for people who have "credibility problems"." In the next part we'll begin to connect Lozza's online activities (and court activities) to those of Garrett. And yes, they communicate.
Garrett has a history of liaising with other parties or relying on "online mobs" to do his biddings. There is no injunction forbidding me from showing this. It is a matter of public interest as well. █