Legal Threats

 

In February 2025, police confiscated my hardware, including over 15 terabytes of personal and professional data, as part of a criminal case instigated by L.O. To this day, those drives have not been returned to me, though I have been reliably informed that I should be getting them back soon, as the case appears to be going nowhere. This is a classic example of how L.O. weaponizes the legal system against her victims, not to seek justice, but to damage, delay, and disarm those who could expose her.

Read  about the Golden Child Narcissist and how they are created and how they operate.

Facsimile received from L.O.'s new employers law firm:

To:
Mr. Klaus Grabler
Redacted

URGENT NOTICE

Subject: Alleged unlawful harassment
Our clients: Redacted
Reference: 0001/24
Date: 22 April 2025

Dear Mr. Grabler,

We act for ************ and its editor-in-chief, Mr. ***********, in the matter referenced above.

1. Unlawful conduct alleged
   Our clients state that you have conducted a sustained campaign of harmful communications, including defamatory statements and threats, causing them significant damage. They will take all appropriate legal steps to halt this conduct.

2. Illustrative incidents (non-exhaustive)
   According to our instructions, you first appeared on client channels (blogs/social media) using misleading identities. Thereafter you contacted Mr.***** through multiple aliases, including “********” (fastmail) and “****.” (ProtonMail).
   Under the “****” identity, an e-mail dated 4 November 2024 allegedly accused Mr. ***** of improper behavior connected to a purported interview and threatened to escalate the matter to senior management at the ********** Group. The message characterized his conduct in sexualized terms and warned of consequences.

3. Legal assessment (Germany)
   On the facts as presented by our clients, your actions violate their general personality rights and reputation (cf. §§ 823(1), 823(2), 824, 826 BGB) and constitute criminal offenses including insult/defamation (§§ 185–187 StGB). The creation and use of third-party names for accounts and profiles infringes name rights (§ 12 BGB). Elements of threat/coercion are also present (§§ 240, 241 StGB). In addition, the conduct meets civil and criminal criteria associated with stalking (GewSchG § 1(2) no. 2(b); StGB § 238(1) nos. 2, 8). Further review is ongoing.

4. Injunctive relief demanded
   Our clients are entitled to an injunction under § 1004 BGB. To eliminate the risk of repetition, you must sign and return a cease-and-desist undertaking with a contractual penalty clause. A draft is attached.
   Deadline: Friday, 25 April 2025.
   E-mail (PDF) or fax will suffice for timely receipt if the original follows immediately. Given the gravity and frequency alleged, no extension will be granted.

5. Damages and liability
   You have incurred liability for substantial non-pecuniary and pecuniary losses. These include compensation to Mr. **** for personal harm and to both clients for financial losses, including investigative costs and legal fees. Because the total damage cannot yet be quantified, we require your acknowledgement of liability on the merits as a first step.
   Deadline: Friday, 25 April 2025.

6. Information duties
   Pursuant to § 242 BGB, provide a detailed account of the scope of your communications: the exact statements made, full wording, channels used, dates/times, recipients, and the identity of any collaborators.
   Deadline: Friday, 2 May 2025.
   Be advised that false or incomplete information may be unlawful and that an affidavit may be sought where justified.

7. Reservation of rights
   Our clients reserve all further civil claims and the right to initiate or expand criminal proceedings.

---

Confidentiality / Publication
This correspondence serves exclusively to defend our clients’ rights. Any publication or dissemination may give rise to separate claims.

Yours faithfully,
— Attorney —
Redacted

Attachment: Cease-and-Desist Undertaking (summary terms)

I, REDACTED, undertake as follows:

1. Non-repetition (content-specific): To refrain, under a reasonable contractual penalty per breach, from making, publishing, or distributing statements substantially equivalent in content to those previously sent under the “Lea O.” identity concerning the alleged interview and alleged misconduct, including threats to escalate to corporate management.

2. Non-repetition (additional claims): To refrain, under penalty as above, from asserting that the company or its editor-in-chief relies solely on “the word of a criminal,” or materially similar formulations.

3. No threats of dissemination: To refrain, under penalty as above, from threatening publication or further distribution of allegations covered by clauses 1–2, including communications to employers, authorities, or political bodies.

4. Damages: To compensate ********** and Mr. ***** for all material and immaterial losses already incurred or arising in connection with the conduct addressed in the warning letter dated 16/22 April 2025, including investigative and legal costs.

 

This letter was clearly written on behalf of L.O. and stands as a prime example of how she uses enablers to carry out her dirty work for her. It contains no actual evidence, no substantiated claims, only vague accusations and a thinly veiled attempt to silence me through intimidation and the threat of legal consequences.

The reason they present no proof is simple: any real evidence would inevitably point straight back to the true instigator, L.O. herself. The letter is not about justice; it’s about control, suppression, and protecting the person actually responsible.

I returned the letter to them, by changing the receiving address to their own offices on the courier company's website, untouched by their demands. I assume they were surprised by the early return of the letter. I hope they were severely disappointed to realise it had never been delivered to me. Since then, there has been complete silence from their side. My position remains unchanged: I welcome them to present genuine evidence if they have it. Until then, their words are nothing more than noise.