Intercontinental Brigading - Part XXXXI - What I Told British Police About Lozza the Same Month Garrett Was Preparing His First Nastygram From 'Hired Guns' Brett Wilson LLP
By that stage, Lozza and Garrett had already:
- Publicly spoken (to one another) about how to silence/deplatform us
- Issued complaints in tandem to a webhost in the United States
- Issued complaints in tandem to a webhost in the United Kingdom
Exactly 3 months ago (they try to prevent me mentioning the connection by sending me threatening letters around the same time):
Previous Parts:
With one single redaction (officer's name):
My Legal Rights
Hi [redacted], Good Evening (or Monday Morning),
Statement of Facts
0. I've sought some senior advice on this matter. Even though it is a weekend, which means access to lawyers is a lot harder, I've managed to understand the situation a lot better. I would like cordially explain essential background and provable facts. I have a long track record of insisting on hard facts, I never did any drugs, and I never had any trouble with the law.
1. I kept my promise and did not mention Lozza even once since Friday morning. Not in IRC chat, not in the site, and not anywhere online. I've stuck to my promise.
2. The harassment by Lozza against my wife continues today (Sunday), so something clearly isn't right, would you not agree?
3. The victims are being gagged by a serial abuser with the aid of misinformation told to cops. One side is prematurely presumed guilty without even hearing from it. The escalation process seems grotesquely imbalanced.
4. Lying to cops is a crime, but if you lie to police in another country you can get away with it. You're being told lies, or things presented without any context, with the sole intent of further harassing, in this case by proxy.
5. The same has been done to webhosts, which I intend to show using my own experience; committing perjury and using sockpuppet accounts for Denial of Service attacks is illegal too. These are serious crimes.
6. The case opened by a foreign person (after both my wife and I had already opened cases and made that publicly known) is just further example of the ongoing campaign of harassment and there is ample history to this (going back over a decade; I have video evidence and text evidence of this abuse directed at myself and people close to me). The clock did not start in recent months; Lozza had admired me online for many years and kept abusing me because I showed no romantic interest. Lozza occasionally did this publicly and there are many witnesses too.
7. This behaviour cannot be cured and it will persist until someone exposes what this behaviour is and how it is done. Hence, reporting is essential herein. Feelings are a lesser aspect if the magnitude of the crime merits public awareness.
8. It should be stressed that this is an old modus operandi of abusing cops (in numerous ways, including defamation and guilt trips, cop-shaming, sometimes with suicide as emotional blackmail) and misusing tribunals to fabricate threats and thus to harass people. There is no actual court case; it is theatrics. You are being misled. Hence the importance of illuminating the past, based on publicly accessible material from the government's own site. Nothing that I showed constituted "doxing" (ever, in my entire life). That's just another lie being repeated a lot. Technically, my wife and I were being doxed - just another example of narratives being grossly invented and inverted, painting the victims as the aggressors.
9. In this case, being on the wrong side of history means siding with serial abusers who attack women, commit numerous cybercrimes etc. There are now (in the past 2 days) more cybercrimes being committed as well as attacks on family members, including parents and siblings.
10. With respect, I believe you are being manipulated and are not willing to consider that possibility. I gave you two crime reference numbers that are deeply connected to your allocated/assigned case and I saw no evidence that you even looked them up and studied them. I had previously told you about those cases over the telephone (but I was in bed and didn't have the numbers available; you phoned when I was asleep).
11. With all good intentions, as I have no doubt you seek to protect the community, you unwittingly and maybe unwillingly entertain a person who attacks British women, based on lies, perjuries, and falsification of credentials. You help a person who still posts antisemitic material online all the time (deemed too extreme by Twitter and this is why Lozza was banned by Twitter a decade ago) while shouting in the Techrights channels "gas the Jews" and "kill the Jews" (we have solid evidence, based on leaked communication, that it is Lozza doing this). We're talking about an audience of hundreds. Harassment against Jews is a hate crime, as are the hate crimes reported by Rianne last summer.
12. Every single day since Friday, i.e. 3 days in a row, the abuse persists. Under what British law is there a legal obligation to keep quiet about it?
13. Lozza's obsession with me goes back to 2010 and abuse against myself and associates (now my family too) goes that far back. Why are things that happened 10+ years ago considered irrelevant when they are extremely relevant to the present situation? Lozza has a history of abusing British cops (who then took action against him) and even - inter alia - abusing their parents who are retired police chiefs, resorting to crackpot conspiracy theory, calling them names and defaming them. Being stoned (Lozza openly admitted doing hard drugs; it's in the public domain) is not a valid excuse, but even in recent times Lozza tried using drug-induced hallucinations as an excuse.
14. Lozza admitted applying for a job at Microsoft (again, this is in the public domain) and is more concerned about what I wrote about Microsoft; being a catspaw by making it personal and then framing it as a personal dispute is why a proper legal review of the events, including Crime refs 06A1/0025876/23 and 06A1/0025880/23, is imperative. Lozza is collaborating with Microsoft associates. We have evidence of that. Microsoft has long attempted to interfere with Techrights publications, and always by proxy. There is very hard, concrete proof of all this.
Request for Information (Legal)
15. Is there any legal ground upon which I am prevented from discussing the (in effect) gag order? It seems very ad hoc and not grounded in any pertinent law.
16. Which section am I at risk of violating? I must know so that I can verify. I am legally entitled to be told this.
17. There was - only 2 days ago - press coverage about a case of British police paying out someone for misapplying laws: https://reason.com/2024/01/26/brickbat-thought-crime-2/ short story, false arrest, detained man got compensated. This is very recent.
My Personal Views
Long story short, from a legal perspective, if someone from another continent or even the same country/ies does something truly horrible and even illegal stuff to your and your family for years, merely writing what this person did and presenting evidence isn't illegal; in fact it is something encouraged especially when there's a long track record of the person doing the same to other people, especially people residing in other countries (where holding someone accountable is a lot harder).
This person is trying to get low-cost or zero-cost 'revenge' by misusing public services both at home and abroad. The publicly available track record shows this clearly and officially (in official documents).
Ways Forward
Techrights exposed many scandals for two decades, reaching major publications as testament of its positive impact.
Tomorrow I plan to publish articles for whistleblowers from the European Patent Office, as I have done for many years, exposing actual corruption that the press follows Techrights to understand and a recent scandal is connected to Microsoft.
Tomorrow I also wish to publish an article that does not name anybody and is 100% factual. It's about a message that does not name anyone and was respected by a legal team. It was received and honoured by my webhost, which was able to verify things and sided with me all along.
If you believe publishing this in violation of a British law, please state which exact law and section this would violate so I can seek further legal advice. Precision matters here as one-word replies are very board and vague.
This was the complete report, unaltered. As implied above, in gentler words, transatlantic swatting had been attempted from America.
The person who attempted swatting would of course dox the officer months later.
People who do not respect the law won't respect those whose professional role is to enforce the law.
In response to pressure, the evidence of this doxing was later removed. █