SAVING the best for last (there's a lot more to come), tonight I wish to only share some early experiences I had with the EPO's bullies. At a later point we will show the full legal dissection that includes point-by-point rebuttal and demonstrates that the EPO not only ignores the law when it comes to internal operations but also when it comes to outside engagements (external). These people are thugs and they are contracting goons from the outside (i.e. more privatisation).
"They wanted to ensure that I have no time to seek legal advice."The EPO, in sending me threatening letters, did not follow the appropriate procedures. These letters were seemingly not sent from a professional in the field, either. They should give 14 days to respond, as a matter of law. It seems as though they are not even aware of how it's done, but they did it at around 23:30 on a Friday night, showing utter disregard for their target and misuse of new defamation laws, which do not even permit this. Any emotional harm caused to a person who is criticised is not enough to merit litigation, especially since malicious intent or fabrications are required to make up defamation cases. More importantly they need to say who it's published to and who they actually represent (otherwise there may be no capacity to take any action at all, in which case this all just amounts to harassment or trolling). When I received the first letter (there was more than one) I knew the EPO was trying to engage in a campaign of silencing, but it was too late at night (and beginning of a weekend), so reaching out for legal advice was extremely hard. This is probably what the EPO intended; how many lawyers actually work until midnight on a Friday? They wanted to ensure that I have no time to seek legal advice or that the longer it takes, the greater the liability. Not even silence was presented as an option (akin to Miranda rights).
What I wrote back to them was very short and I then passed the letter to my lawyer. The sender of the latter was possibly not a law specialist. My lawyer called it a "prank letter". On the face of it, I could ask for at least 14 days to respond, but how would one know this without access to a suitable lawyer late on Friday night? They asked me to write back immediately (a trap) and they clearly don't know what they are doing, or maybe they deliberately break the rules. Well, this is "SLAPP" -- an action intended only to chill a person. It's abusive. Such abuses of the law are a common theme inside the EPO, based on other stories (like that of Elizabeth Hardon).
“The EPO already has a history of trademark-trolling its critics.”The EPO, in the mean time, carried on sending ever more threatening letters, but this time I already had legal advice, hence I could not be easily fooled. Further to a phonecall or two (during the weekend), my lawyer sent a holding response, sent at my instruction. I had reread my own post and found it totally defensible, even by citing mainstream media interpretations of the leaks (original and authentic, definitely in the public interest). Only if something was incorrect in it would it be worth taking down the post. But I will not do so. Because it's totally defensible. The EPO was clearly just trying to take down all my recent posts (at the time) because it suffered a major backlash in the corporate media, which cited my articles on the subject. The bullies were utterly desperate to salvage the EPO's reputation; they even wanted a public "apology" as means of attempting to change history and portray the messenger as wrong, i.e. putting words in their critic's mouth.
I decided that if the criteria for takedown (and apology) was as terrible as noted in that last threatening letter (worse an example than the first), then they can just libel-troll a lot of other articles, as they probably already do against other people (the totally wrong surname in the first letter potentially serves to confirm this). The EPO already has a history of trademark-trolling its critics. It uses fear (or terrorism, to use a mightier synonym) to silence dissenting voices.
This whole campaign of libel-trolling, which I presume is the frantic/panicky result of managers and others potentially risking the sack (for their actions and the resultant public outcry from European lawyers, i.e. the 'clients' of EPO), is ideologically indefensible. It shames the EPO even further as they juggle a whole lot of scandals. ⬆
“There is nothing so bad but it can masquerade as moral”
--Walter Lippmann (American Journalist, 1889-1974)