Techrights

Microsofters Targeting the Wife of the Critic of Microsoft

Posted by Roy Schestowitz on May 20, 2025,

updated May 20, 2025

"...I was sitting on the XML Working Group and co-editing the spec, on a pro bono basis as an indie consultant. Netscape hired me to represent their interests, and when I announced this, controversy ensued. Which is a nice way of saying that Microsoft went berserk; tried unsuccessfully to get me fired as co-editor, and then launched a vicious, deeply personal extended attack in which they tried to destroy my career and took lethal action against a small struggling company because my wife worked there. It was a sideshow of a sideshow of the great campaign to bury Netscape and I’m sure the executives have forgotten; but I haven’t."

--Tim Bray

Recent: Never Try to Justify Strangulation of Women (Not in the US and Not in the UK)

Today we deal with misogyny. If a "trigger warning" is warranted, and if you're sensitive to this sort of subject, please close the tab and move on.

So yesterday and two days ago we started talking about issues we plan to raise in the trial later this year. That's because the other party is already leaking out the trial information to Microsoft, which pays for the SLAPPs through salaries (the serial strangler from Microsoft) because there's a crisis at the company and there's incriminating stuff they wish to hide.

What we'll present below contains false claims and loaded statements, as nothing we said disputes what was reported by Rianne and I in 2023. We categorically deny such ludicrous distortion of what was said in IRC, where the man we're suing [1, 2] used his own account to hijack other people's or impersonate people in order to defame them (he did not even deny doing this; he broke rules if not more than rules when he did so). One person told us it likely amounts to "fraud", too. Seeding discord by impersonating people is potentially worse than identity theft and flirts with cracking by social engineering. We'll revisit the cracking narrative at a later stage.

To be very clear, Rianne merely reported on what was done to her (too gross to be worth repeating in words or quoting again). It was factual and contained evidence she took weeks to collect.

The sick man who had attacked me online since 2012 (defaming me, harassing me, stalking me, threatening me, threatening people who know me, trying to interfere with my reporting of facts and opposition to monopoly abuse, sabotage by Microsoft etc.) ended up contacting my wife out of the blue, sending her physical letters and E-mails (for the record, neither me nor her ever communicated or even sent any E-mail to this person in our entire lifetime!)

This fits in with his longstanding pattern of misogyny (which might also explain his choice of lawyer). This is what he wrote to my wife (whose E-mail address he somehow found):

>

Hey Roy, Rianne:

In

https://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-031023.html#tOct%2003%2003:52:25,

you admit that elusive_woman could be people other than me. As I'm sure

you're aware, in order to successfully defend a defamation suit in

England, it is necessary for you to demonstrate the truth of the claims.

Asserting that I have engaged in criminal acts is defamation per se,

meaning that damage is assumed rather than needing to be demonstrated. I

have determined that claims you have both made have been read by

individuals within England, and they understood these claims to refer to

me. This satisfies all the criteria required to succeed in a defamation

claim:

1) You asserted a factual claim that I have committed crimes (ie,

defamation per se)

2) This assertion was read by someone in England

3) They understood that the claim referred to me

In order to defend against such a claim, you would be required to

demonstrate that the claim was substantially true. Since you admit that

you are aware the statements you rely on for this claim could have been

made by someone else (and, in fact, *were* made by someone else, since

the elusive_woman persona is not and never has been me), you have

admitted that you cannot demonstrate the truth of this claim. Given the

per se nature of the defamation, failure to prove the claims were true

would result in you being liable for damages.

I would urge you to consult with an appropriately qualified lawyer. I

would also request that you remove the articles from both techrights.org

and tuxmachines.org making defamatory claims against me, replace them

with an apology, and contact everyone who you have repeated these claims

to and inform them that they were unfounded. If you confirm that you

have done so by 23:59 UTC on Friday the 6th of October 2023 I will

consider the matter closed and will not engage in any further action.

Yours sincerely,

Matthew Garrett

In case it's not obvious, what he basically did there was, he sent my wife a threat. He also distorted what had been said in IRC to make the threat seem potent and "reasonable" or "proportionate".

Later, despite receiving no reply from anyone, he sent my wife yet another threat with yet another deadline "reminder" (as if he's some lawyer or a court):

>

Hey Roy, Rianne,

Given that you've admitted that you believe some of the abuse that

Rianne has received (and I want to emphasise that this abuse is 100%

unacceptable and I understand why Rianne would feel incredibly offended

and hurt by it - there is no universe in which this behaviour is

acceptable) was from someone other than me, I would once again ask you

to consider whether you have evidence of the truth of any of the crimes

you are acusing me of. As I said before, if you remove the articles

accusing me of criminal behaviour and replace them with an apology, and

contact anyone you have made these accusations towards and inform them

that you were mistaken, and do so by 23:59 on Friday the 6th of October,

I will take no further action.

Yours,

Matthew Garrett

Setting aside the fallacies and the typos above (much of those assertions and loaded statements are patently false or intentionally misleading), he asks for an apology rather than offers an apology, having long incited and defamed us, spreading hate and vitriol online based on complete fabrications and falsehoods. The nerve! He had long done this to other people as well.

Put simply, he doesn't like to face the consequences for his own actions. He's projecting.

Below we explain that what Matthew Garrett, helped by Brett Wilson LLP and before that by Neil Brown, boils down to extortion, more so once they brought in an actual strangler from Microsoft to issue additional threats.

The saddest thing here must be, women are treated like actual trash by these people. Women get subjected to blackmail, bluster, and even put on the verge of death. Narcissists like these need to face public scrutiny, not left scrutinised, working in the darkness with secret threats, secret arrests, secret trials etc. █

"One strategy that Microsoft has employed in the past is paying for the silence of people and companies. Charles Pancerzewski, formerly Microsoft’s chief auditor, became aware of Microsoft’s practice of carrying earnings from one accounting period into another, known as “managing earnings”. This practice smoothes reported revenue streams, increases share value, and misleads employees and shareholders. In addition to being unethical, it’s also illegal under U.S. Securities Law and violates Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (Fink).

--2002 story about Charles Pancerzewski, Microsoft

From yesterday's Daily Links:

What Microsoft people do to us this year (and have repeatedly done since last year), based on what well known lawyers say, is "Corporate extortion" or "Corporate blackmail". It's illegal, period, but SRA is the body which deals with this, not police. It can fine and strike off the offending parties. Even if the lawyer flees from the law firm he or she can still be held accountable because of no filtering/vetting or actively pursuing agenda of licence misuse (in exceptional circumstances even Directors of a "limited liability" outfit can be pursued for reparations, especially for direct involvement, which demonstrably exists in this case as Mr. Wilson is brought up by name in court documents).

Any law firm can just fling away two SLAPPs or lawsuits for Microsoft staff, flunkies, and toadies, but there are real consequences for one's actions; sometimes the sensible (or foreseen) reaction should correctly be interpreted as a potent risk not worth taking. That's what makes a difference between successful law firms and failing ones deep in debt.

"Idiots can be defeated but they never admit it."

--Richard Stallman