original
An Update on Our Appeal
"Order already followed"
There was an online effort (in social control media) to discredit us. We don't participate in social control media (neither my wife nor I), so we can only respond in a blog. And that's how it ought to be, no "brigading" or Internet trolling. Trolls thrive in social control media; they lack the mental maturity to operate a proper site and engage in an amicable, professional fashion.
Just before Christmas we received a threatening letter. Hours after my birthday (they knew it was my birthday).
We'll file an appeal depending on the nature of the behaviour and its timing too will depend on behaviour. If we need to illuminate the nature of the threats, we'll publicise them so that everyone can see. For the time being, to avoid disclosing private letters, the following message (ours) sent 7 days ago tells a story:
We complied fully with the Order, which we will also appeal soon. Your 5-page letter demonstrates exactly why this appeal is very much necessary and well overdue. This Order did not grant you the things your client falsely asserts in vexatious statements online. We should note that 100% of his social media posts from December 15 until December 23 were about us, which seems obsessive/compulsive.The litigant has in fact made it abundantly clear, in public and unequivocally - both in 2023 and again in December 2025 (his latest temper tantrum) - that his true and real intention isn't to remove particular pages that mention his name but to effectively take our Web sites offline with about half a million Web pages from many contributors, exposing corruption in a 41-year period (combined ages of the sites), in effect cutting off non-profits and the only our only means of communicating with our families. It's not only sinister; it's a threat that is not legal.
But given how he also advised a person who had strangled women to sue us (to drain our legal budget for a Counterclaim - the very definition of frivolous and strategic litigation; their interferences are financially motivated on several levels; a week ago the Court added the Garrett Order to Graveley's case, satisfying our assertion those two cases are closely, inherently connected and they shamelessly game the system), this would not be too shocking that his desire of vengeance goes this far. When we raised this subject you not only repeatedly defamed us, fallaciously calling us names; you also resorted to many breaches of Civil Procedure Rules. You never operated in good faith, you just bully us. You are now attempting to cover up what you did to us.
You may not be aware of what your client does online, so I will point to it: he is doxing family members, using private information acquired through reckless solicitors looking for vengeance and misusing data (despite claiming to be specialists in Data Protection).
You cannot keep acting facetiously about your true motivations. We cannot have a constructive discussion when your client openly and publicly threatens to taken down half a million Web pages without due process and without legal basis (as he had done for years and again this month, only a day apart from your letter).
It's our understanding that we need not supply you with this information about the formal processes. You simply refuse to accept facts that do not suit your interests. Or maybe you want this information to do yet more doxing.
We categorically disagree with your assessment and it's a matter for a Court to decide. We shall also take the liberty to refer to this communication in appealing. The aim here is law, not lawfare.
Merry Christmas,
Rianne and Roy
This was about a week after they pushed some rather grotesque selective quoting in an effort to discredit us (in our own platform) despite the Judge seeing and understanding our concerns, which seemed legitimate to her. She objected to the selective quoting and rewrote the summary for the Judgement - a decision that we appreciated (that she took time to redo the text).
We'll write about the whole thing some time in the next 5 years or so (it is a very long story). We live in a free country that - at least in theory, even if not in practice - offers freedom of speech to all. We didn't say hateful things, we combatted hateful things. We'll always oppose hateful things. █