Techrights
Using SLAPPs to Cover Up Sexual Abuse and Strangulation
Posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jul 12, 2025,
updated Jul 12, 2025
The exact same legal team of the Serial Strangler from Microsoft and Garrett [1, 2] already has a history fighting against "metoo" (lawfare against the powerless)
Related:
- Microsoft's Serial Strangler Chose to Attack Techrights With SLAPP When Over 400 Victims of Mohamed Al Fayed Complained About Media's Role in Enabling Him
- Never Try to Justify Strangulation of Women (Not in the US and Not in the UK)
- Law Firms Facing the Consequences for Patently Abusive Litigation on Behalf of Microsoft Employees Who Got Arrested for Strangulation and Had Done Even Worse Things
It's hard to ignore the fact that the very same people who decided to pick on my wife and I (she merely explained real abuse and crimes she had been subjected to) have a well-documented and publicly-accessible history of chaining together against "metoo" several unrelated things: "(a) libel; (b) harassment; and (c) for breach of the GDPR" (in their own words).
The overuse and misuse of claims is done to complicate and increase the cost of a defence, in this case to take down a blog of a person without legal representation.
It is the same barrister - a copypasta artist - chosen by the Serial Strangler from Microsoft and Garrett with "Brett Wilson LLP for the Claimant" (same as the Serial Strangler from Microsoft and Garrett).
Everything gets stacked against the Defendant by means of scale and weight (money leveraged against an anonymous person). We already saw that before, but when the newspaper was legally represented (by RPC) it not only won the case (meritless claim). There was a rebuke from the Judge: "UK High Court Blasts Brett Wilson LLP for Misusing "GDPR" After Failed Efforts to Censor Critics Using 'Libel' Claims"
That was a case of clear abuse of process. They try to make progress by throwing more and more meritless claims. This means not trying to win based on merit but by gaming the expensive process, tiring down the opposition or exhausting its financial means, access to legal advice etc. (they just try to trip people up on formalities alone)
Good judges can see what's really happening (no matter if almost 1,000 pages get thrown at them before of a very short hearing) and women who participate in it - i.e. help men attack women whom they abused - will lose interest in the job, move on, and it'll be hard to find suitably-qualified replacements willing to work for some Serial Strangler from Microsoft in another continent.
In the above case it's hard to assess the merits (even worse when a judge is male, empathising with other males). We assume that after fighting with kilograms of papers they managed to take down the blog, but it is still in the Wayback Machine for multiple years.
Staff that participates in the above is in effect creating a "digital footprint" for themselves, being not only on the "wrong side of history" but also helping violent men attack their victims via lawfare. Sooner or later people like these become unemployable and are rendered rogues.
In the future we'll show how you can get an "[get me] out of jail" card if only you pay a lawyer who has connections inside the court and who bribes politicians. █
Also see: When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent