Email 1: Michael Williams’ Aggressive Provocation and False Narrative of Victimhood
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email from Michael Gavin Williams, which he deliberately omitted from his submissions to the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, exposes his role as the true instigator and escalator of this conflict. Rather than a neutral party attempting to disengage, Michael’s own words demonstrate a calculated effort to provoke, defame, and distort events, all while portraying himself as a victim. His hostile, accusatory, and inflammatory tone contradicts any claim that he sought to avoid conflict. Had this email been included in his police statements, it would have revealed his active participation in escalating tensions, fabricating allegations, and weaponizing the criminal justice system.
From: Michael Williams mgw@ucla.edu
Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:45 AM
To: The Author thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com
Cc: Alex Ayal alexayal@tutamail.com, Lyn Ayal lynayal@gmail.com, Steve Ayal steveayal@hotmail.com, David Gordon david.gordon.reno@gmail.com, Kirk Rader kirk@rader.us
Subject: Re: Reflections on Family Dynamics and Our Shared Path Forward
I'm not on many of these emails so I'm not sure what you intended for me to see or not see. But you will leave my wife and her family out of it. I can't conceive of any plausible purpose you have in quoting something you think my wife said and including her mother and sister, other than to provoke and harass my family. They want no part of it. Leave them out of it.
In the spirit of accountability:
There may be emotional distance and communication issues in our family, like many families. Many people have issues and grievances with family and upbringing. There are lots of healthy and unhealthy ways to address them.
But you are right, it is different with you. Not because of whatever Lyn's Great Financial Conspiracy And Stuff you came up with this time. It's because you behave differently. You have repeatedly handled difficult family issues and painful feelings with raw viciousness, by reaching out to random people to talk shit about us, by ranting about it on social media, and with scary manic episodes. You did that to me in 2015. You did that about mom in 2017 in countless emails and when you called Steve to tell him she is an awful liar and he should divorce her. Before that you did it publicly about our father, after he was dead but while he was still *the source of all your problems* before it turned to me and then to mom--remember that? And then it was Danny's turn 2 years ago when you didn't like something they put on instagram about Emma. Have you spoken a single word to Danny since then?
And that one was before or after you got arrested for hurting Emma? Did she get a restraining order against you? That was the second or third restraining order women have taken out against you, after Carrie? Also that was after your theft charges from Rand but before your DUI right?
I don't know anyone else who acts like this. Do you? That's a genuine question I hope you have the integrity to consider honestly. I know you don't like to think of yourself in these terms but these are all things you did. Accountability.
And here we are with a new one. This time with my in-laws copied, thanks for that. When you reach for the Balfour Declaration From 1917 and Lyn Ayal's Terrible Evil Emotional Manipulation in the same breath you sound manic. You've proven to me many times that in that manic state, anything we've ever shared with you, confided in you, struggled with in front of you is fair game for you to use to try to hurt us. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong about anything you say about mom here. When you act like this you are the danger and I need to protect my family from you. Remember when you told 5000 strangers on facebook that I'm a disgusting meat eater and it figures because I had colic as a baby and wasn't close to my mother growing up? Yeah I remember that too.
Are you accountable for that? Saying there are "misunderstandings and disagreements about your behavior" is preposterously euphemistic and childishly avoidant. The reality is a lot simpler, you just don't like the words. You are not a safe person. You are not a sane person. I don't trust you. You are dangerous. We are not safe from you. That's why you have never met my son. I have absolutely no doubt you would try to inject the same poison into him the next time you get mad at me. Which is inevitable.
You are distant from your family because you've tried to knife us so many times. Accountability.
I'm not sure what you hope to get out of your family with these messages. But I think you will not get it as long as your approach to difficult emotions and complicated family dynamics continues to be arson by email. And you will not get it before you are able, through medication, through therapy, through hospitalization, through I don't know what to handle these normal human challenges without turning them into an unhinged Grand Theory of Lyn Ayal As Satan And Other Things email string. You need professional help.
I hope you find peace. It will not involve me.
Leave my family alone
Michael’s omission of this email is a deliberate act of deception designed to present a one-sided, distorted narrative to the police. Instead of disengaging, he taunts, belittles, and makes sweeping defamatory claims—including false accusations of past criminal activity—without evidence. His insistence on framing me as "dangerous" while repeatedly engaging in hostile and inflammatory communication is a textbook example of gaslighting and manipulation.
By withholding this email from police submissions, Michael ensured that his own provocations, defamatory accusations, and escalation efforts remained hidden, thereby manufacturing a false image of victimhood. Had the police seen this, it is highly likely they would have reconsidered filing for a Stalking Protection Order, recognizing that Michael was not a victim, but rather the primary aggressor, using selective disclosure to manipulate law enforcement for his own retaliatory ends.
Email 2: Michael Williams’ Willing Engagement and Legal Threats—Contradicting His Claims of Fear
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams intentionally omitted from his police submissions, directly contradicts his narrative that he was an unwilling victim of harassment. Instead of avoiding contact or expressing distress, Michael actively engages in legal discourse, provides instructions on how to serve him legal documents, and even issues his own legal threats under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. His willingness to engage with a supposed "harasser" in a calm, calculated, and retaliatory manner demonstrates that he was neither fearful nor attempting to disengage.
Had Michael genuinely felt threatened or harassed, he would have simply blocked communication, refused to engage, or sought legal recourse without responding directly. His proactive participation in legal discussions and attempt to intimidate with legal counterclaims prove that he saw this as a legal dispute—not harassment.
From: Michael Williams mgw@ucla.edu
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:30 PM
To: The Author thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com
Subject: Re: Notice of Upcoming Legal Filing Against Mr. Michael Williams
If you actually file a complaint you can serve me by email. I am not in San Francisco so I cannot accept personal service there.
If you are responsible enough to get actual legal advice before trying this stunt, you will have been advised that you do not have a defamation claim. Know that if you decide to waste my time on this anyway, I will go after you for my fees and expenses. See CCP § 128.5.
Pretty much everyone else in our family has blocked you, so either way you don't need to go on with this mass email harassment.
Michael deliberately withheld this email from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary because it exposes his willingness to communicate, his legal threats, and his true intentions to escalate the conflict. This email destroys his claim of being an unwilling victim of harassment, as he dictates terms of legal service, warns of counter-litigation, and demonstrates clear control over the interaction.
By omitting this crucial communication, Michael manipulated law enforcement by presenting a false, one-sided portrayal of distress and victimhood. Had the police seen this email, they would have recognized that Michael was not a victim of harassment, but an active participant in a legal and familial dispute that he chose to escalate for his own advantage.
Email 3: Michael Williams’ Willing Engagement and Instruction on Legal Service—Contradicting His Own Claims of Fear and Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams deliberately omitted from his police submissions, further contradicts his claim that he was an unwilling victim of harassment. Rather than attempting to disengage or expressing distress, Michael openly invites communication, instructs on legal service procedures, and even sarcastically suggests using ChatGPT for legal guidance. His demeanour is neither fearful nor distressed—it is mocking, confrontational, and fully engaged in the dispute.
Michael states, "I’ve tried to communicate with you directly in order to spare the various people on this email who have asked you many times to stop including them." Yet, rather than blocking communication or seeking lawful recourse to prevent further contact, he continues engaging, dictates legal service terms, and escalates the dispute. This proves that he was not seeking to avoid contact but instead engaging willingly, thereby undermining any claim that he was being stalked or harassed.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 1:15 PM
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>, Kirk Rader <kirk@rader.us>, Lyn Ayal <lynayal@gmail.com>, Alex Ayal <alexayal@tutamail.com>, Steve Ayal <steveayal@hotmail.com>, steveayal@gmail.com <steveayal@gmail.com>, Danielle Williams <dewilliams83@gmail.com>, Victoria Bromberg <victoriabromberg@gmail.com>, Betty Bromberg <bettybromberg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Legal Filing Update and Personal Reflections
I've tried to communicate with you directly in order to spare the various people on this email who have asked you many times to stop including them. But I guess you can't control yourself and won't engage with me directly so here we are.
For the second time, I am telling you that I will accept service of your complaint by email. It's called service by notice and acknowledgement of receipt. You can ask chatgpt about it. Alternatively, you can serve me by mail at 851 Cherry Ave Ste 27, #1078, San Bruno, CA 94066. But either way you need to send me the version file stamped by the court, and the summons, not just the chatgpt output.
I've now provided you two different methods to serve me, and your continued references to finding out "Michael Williams's [sic] residential address, which he shares with Mrs. Danielle Williams and their son" are yet another attempt to intimidate us and a not very veiled threat to my family. This will not reflect well on you in court, either in your "defamation" action or in our separate action for a restraining order against you.
In any event, are you really not aware that there are records of these things? Here are a few
1. Police report on "Grand Theft/Fraud". Rand accused you of grand theft and the Santa Moncia PD agreed. I wouldn't know what you were later convicted of and I didn't claim to know.
2. Booking record of your arrest for "243(E)(1) - BAT:SPOUSE/EX SP/DATE/ET". Penal code section 243(E) is battery against a domestic partner. So "you were arrested for hurting Emma" is true whether or not you dispute having hurt Emma.
3. Email from you on May 12, 2015: "I am also in substance abuse classes for my DUI." Enough said.
4. Email from you on May 12, 2015: "Sure, I am probably fucked up and crazy and untrustworthy" You'll forgive me for taking you at your word.
I guess we'll discuss these and the rest in open court. Did your lawyer chatgpt also advise you that by putting your mental health at issue in a defamation claim, you have waived all privilege and confidentiality in your mental health records? When will your therapist(s) be available for depositions? When are you sending me your medical records and medication history? My address is above. Or email is fine.
And again, after your claim fails on the merits I will ask the court to award me fees and expenses from you under CCP § 128.5. So I'm tracking my time on this. My most recent billing rate at Morrison Foerster before going in house was $1,015 an hour.
Michael chose to omit this email from his police submission because it exposes his active role in the conflict, contradicting his false claims of victimhood. His direct instructions on how to serve legal documents, sarcastic tone, and continued participation in communication clearly show that he was not a reluctant, distressed victim but an active participant in escalating this legal and personal dispute.
By intentionally misrepresenting the nature of these interactions, Michael weaponized the criminal justice system to paint a false narrative of one-sided harassment. Had the Cambridgeshire Constabulary seen this email, they would have recognized that Michael was never in fear or distress, but instead actively escalating the conflict while selectively withholding evidence to manipulate law enforcement for retaliatory purposes.
Email 4: Michael Williams’ Dismissive and Obstructive Behaviour—Contradicting His Alleged Fear and Victimhood
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams intentionally omitted from his police submissions, further proves that he was not a victim of harassment but an active, willing participant in escalating this conflict. Rather than disengaging, blocking communication, or seeking immediate legal relief, Michael directly engages in legal strategy, taunts me, and obstructs transparency regarding critical records.
In this email, Michael:
- Flatly refuses a reasonable request for transparency ("Request denied")—demonstrating a hostile and confrontational stance, rather than fear.
- Engages in legal posturing, citing California procedural laws (CCP § 436) to dismiss aspects of my claim, showing his willingness to battle in court rather than disengage.
- Mentions historical police reports, offering to scan and send records—a contradiction of any claim that he was avoiding contact or under distress.
- Attempts to control information flow, refusing to provide Danny Ayal’s contact information under the guise of protecting them.
Had Michael truly been fearful, he would have cut off communication entirely, refused to engage, and sought protection without continuing to provoke legal arguments. Instead, his eagerness to cite legal statutes, discuss past cases, and maintain a power dynamic over access to information reveals that he was not a victim, but a strategic manipulator of the legal system.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 3:27:57 PM
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>
Cc: Kirk Rader <kirk@rader.us>; Lyn Ayal <lynayal@gmail.com>; Alex Ayal <alexayal@tutamail.com>; Steve Ayal <steveayal@hotmail.com>; steveayal@gmail.com <steveayal@gmail.com>; Danielle Williams <dewilliams83@gmail.com>; Victoria Bromberg <victoriabromberg@gmail.com>; Betty Bromberg <bettybromberg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Request for Transparency and Preservation of Records
Request denied. None of the stuff you put in your complaint about Danny will survive my motion to strike under CCP 436 because it is relevant to your "defamation" claim. I'm sure you're already familiar from your diligent legal research, but see below. In any event Danny wants nothing to do with you, has blocked you, and doesn't want us to provide you their current contact information. The email you have for Danny doesn't work.
The police report on Grand Theft/Fraud was written by Detective Daniel Larios of the Santa Monica PD. Looks like he's still there, you should call him. He said you lied to him and then ducked his calls in 2007. There's a lot more to it after the first page, I'll have to scan it for you.
436. The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:
(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.
(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1167, Sec. 4.)
Michael’s omission of this email from his police submission was a deliberate act of deception, designed to mislead law enforcement into believing that he was being relentlessly pursued, when in reality, he was fully engaged in the conflict, issuing legal threats, and selectively controlling access to key records. His dismissive and sarcastic tone, coupled with his willingness to engage in detailed legal arguments, directly contradicts any claim of harassment, intimidation, or fear.
By withholding this email, Michael deprived the Cambridgeshire Constabulary of critical evidence that would have exposed his willingness to provoke, escalate, and manipulate legal procedures. Had this email been included in his submissions, it is highly likely the police would have recognized his role as an active participant in this dispute, rather than an innocent victim, and dismissed the Stalking Protection Order application accordingly.
Email 5: Michael Williams’ Willing Engagement and Threats of Legal Retaliation—Exposing His True Role as an Aggressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams intentionally omitted from his police submissions, further proves that he was not a fearful victim of harassment, but rather an active participant and instigator in the conflict. Instead of disengaging or blocking communication, Michael openly taunts, ridicules, and threatens legal retaliation—contradicting any claim that he was being stalked or harassed.
In this email, Michael:
· Mocks and belittles past communications, using sarcastic and accusatory language to provoke a reaction ("Are you delusional enough to forget that you did this, or are you just gaslighting?")
· Openly threatens to use past messages as evidence, demonstrating a clear intent to escalate legal conflict rather than disengage.
· States his willingness to continue the back-and-forth indefinitely, contradicting any notion that he felt harassed or in distress ("We can keep doing this as long as you want.").
Had Michael truly been fearful or feeling harassed, he would have ceased communication entirely, sought a protective order without engagement, or blocked further contact. Instead, his tone and content show that he actively wanted to escalate the dispute, weaponize past communications, and prolong the conflict for strategic legal advantage.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:19 PM Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu> wrote:
I believe Danny is reflecting equally on your more recent actions, like this birthday text you sent Danny last year. When you appeal to disney movies, are you delusional enough to forget that you did this, or are you just gaslighting? You also realize that things like this will be relevant in a court case where you have put your safety and sanity directly at issue, right? Glad you are so committed to truth and justice so we can surface more of this in the discovery phase of your lawsuit.
We can keep doing this as long as you want.
Michael Williams deliberately withheld this email from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary because it exposes his role as a manipulator of the legal system, not a victim of harassment. His mocking, taunting, and legal threats directly contradict any claim of fear or distress. Instead of being forced into contact, he repeatedly chooses to engage, escalate, and provoke—all while selectively presenting himself as a victim to law enforcement.
By withholding this crucial evidence, Michael deceived police into believing that he was being persistently harassed when, in reality, he was actively participating in—and encouraging—continued conflict. Had the police seen this email, it is highly likely they would have recognized that Michael was never a victim, but rather a strategic legal aggressor, misusing law enforcement to serve his own retaliatory ends.
Email 6: Michael Williams’ Continued Legal Posturing and Willing Engagement—Contradicting His Alleged Fear of Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams intentionally omitted from his police submissions, once again demonstrates that he was not a victim of harassment but an active and strategic participant in escalating legal conflict. Instead of seeking distance or protection, he initiates legal discussions, demands direct communication, and outlines litigation steps, proving that he was fully engaged in the dispute and not in fear of contact.
In this email, Michael:
· Demands legal representative’s contact information, showing that he expected and welcomed further engagement.
· Explicitly acknowledges that ongoing communication is necessary, contradicting any claim that he felt distressed by my messages.
· Details his intent to file a demurrer and enforce procedural requirements under CCP § 430.41(a)(2)—indicating a high level of legal involvement and escalation.
· Threatens discovery into personal matters, such as past legal records, DUIs, mental health diagnoses, and other sensitive topics, proving that he was actively seeking to weaponize legal processes against me.
Had Michael truly been in fear or distress, he would have ceased all communication, blocked me, and let legal professionals handle the dispute. Instead, he insists on direct interaction, outlines legal steps, and aggressively pursues personal discovery requests, proving that he was neither avoiding nor fearful of engagement.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2023 at 01:02
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>
Cc: Kirk Rader <kirk@rader.us>, Lyn Ayal <lynayal@gmail.com>, Alex Ayal <alexayal@tutamail.com>, Steve Ayal <steveayal@hotmail.com>, steveayal@gmail.com <steveayal@gmail.com>, Danielle Williams <dewilliams83@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Critical Clarifications and Moving Towards Legal Resolution
So that means you don't have a lawyer? You keep saying "legal representation" but why won't you tell us who that is? Just say it so it's clear. If you don't have any, say it. You and I will then have to be in very regular contact--we are legally obligated to by the fact that you filed a complaint against me.
You can say whatever you want about the police report. There's more paperwork on Rand, which we can get into during the long discovery phase of your new lawsuit. But you already know that Rand reported you for theft and fraud (even if you did not have criminal charges filed), so nothing I said about that was false. You've also conceded that nothing I said about DUI and Emma was false. You were arrested for DUI. I didn't say and wouldn't know what you later pled it down to. And "DUI" first came from your mouth--maybe you owe me $300k for that.
You dispute the context and interpretation of things I said, but not what I actually said. None of us believe that you interpreted literally the metaphors of knifing us and poison. You know a court won't either, even if you can't admit it. None of this is how defamation works and you will have an obligation to correct the false statements you apparently filed in court today.. You will find that, unlike chat gpt, the court system does not operate according to your delusions.
I have asked you many times for many years to just leave me and my family alone. Your refusal to honor that very simple request is what leads us here. Keep going and you'll find out how crushingly expensive and unpleasant litigation is.
Michael Williams deliberately omitted this email from his police submission because it destroys his narrative of being a passive, unwilling victim of harassment. Rather than attempting to disengage, he actively provokes further interaction, demands direct communication, and threatens invasive legal actions against me. His cold, calculated legal strategy proves that he was not in fear, but rather using the legal system as a weapon to exert control and inflict harm.
By withholding this email, Michael deceived the Cambridgeshire Constabulary into believing that he was being stalked and harassed, when in reality, he was openly inviting continued legal conflict and actively strategizing litigation against me.
Email 7: Michael Williams’ Continued Engagement and Retaliatory Legal Threats—Further Proof He Is Not a Victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams deliberately omitted from his police submissions, further exposes his false victim narrative by demonstrating that he was fully engaged in escalating legal conflict, not avoiding contact out of fear or distress. Instead of cutting off communication, Michael openly acknowledges his intent to continue engaging with me on legal matters and even threatens a cross-complaint—clear evidence that he was not being harassed but actively retaliating.
In this email, Michael:
· Flatly denies requests for resolution ("Requests denied")—demonstrating a refusal to de-escalate rather than an attempt to avoid conflict.
· Confirms his intent to file a legal demurrer, ensuring continued legal interaction.
· Threatens a cross-complaint, proving that he was not merely defending himself but actively seeking legal retaliation.
Had Michael genuinely been in fear or felt harassed, he would have ceased all contact, blocked communication, or sought a protection order through legal channels without engaging further. Instead, he chooses to escalate the dispute, explicitly states his intent to continue legal actions, and ensures ongoing interaction—which is completely at odds with his claim of being an unwilling victim.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Establishing Guidelines for Future Family Communications and Legal Engagement
Date: 17 November 2023 at 01:30:41 GMT
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>
Cc: Kirk Rader <kirk@rader.us>, Lyn Ayal <lynayal@gmail.com>, Alex Ayal <alexayal@tutamail.com>, Steve Ayal <steveayal@hotmail.com>, "steveayal@gmail.com" <steveayal@gmail.com>, Danielle Williams <dewilliams83@gmail.com>, "danielle.ayal@live.com" <danielle.ayal@live.com>
Requests denied. I will be in touch with you about my demurrer and my cross complaint against you shortly.
Michael Williams deliberately withheld this email from his police submissions because it destroys his fabricated narrative of being pursued and harassed against his will. This email proves that he was actively driving the legal conflict forward, not seeking to escape it. By confirming his intention to file legal motions and countersue, Michael shows that he was not a passive victim but an instigator using the legal system as a weapon.
By omitting this crucial piece of evidence, Michael manipulated law enforcement into believing that me was relentlessly pursuing him, when in reality, Michael was fully engaged in retaliatory legal action and ensuring prolonged interaction. Had the Cambridgeshire Constabulary seen this email, they would have recognized Michael’s role as a willing and aggressive participant, not a distressed victim, and likely declined to pursue the Stalking Protection Order application.
Email 8: Michael Williams’ Baseless Criminal Accusations and Legal Intimidation—Contradicting His Claims of Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams deliberately withheld from his police submissions, is yet another example of his active participation in escalating conflict, making baseless criminal accusations, and weaponizing the legal system to threaten me. Instead of a fearful victim seeking protection, Michael is the aggressor, fabricating a felony accusation against me without evidence and using legal threats to intimidate him.
In this email, Michael:
· Accuses me of felony witness tampering without any proof, demonstrating a clear intent to provoke and escalate legal hostilities.
· Mocks my legal situation ("This is going great for you")—a tone completely inconsistent with someone who feels harassed or intimidated.
· Cites California Penal Code § 136.1, making a thinly veiled threat of criminal prosecution, despite having no grounds for such an allegation.
Had Michael genuinely felt harassed or in distress, he would have ceased communication entirely, refused to engage, or sought legal protection through proper channels. Instead, he continues to provoke conflict, issue legal threats, and falsely accuse me of serious crimes—exposing his true role as an aggressor, not a victim.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Important Family Communication and Request for Respectful Distance
Date: 17 November 2023 at 17:32:36 GMT
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>
Cc: Kirk Rader <kirk@rader.us>, Lyn Ayal <lynayal@gmail.com>, Alex Ayal <alexayal@tutamail.com>, Steve Ayal <steveayal@hotmail.com>, "steveayal@gmail.com" <steveayal@gmail.com>, Danielle Williams <dewilliams83@gmail.com>
Wait so which former girlfriends did you dissuade from providing evidence in your lawsuit? Are you aware that's a felony in California? This is going great for you.
136.1.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
Michael deliberately omitted this email from his police submission because it completely undermines his claim of being harassed or stalked. A person genuinely in fear does not engage in baseless criminal accusations, taunt the alleged harasser, or threaten felony charges with no evidence. Instead, this email proves that Michael was actively instigating legal warfare, misusing the justice system to fabricate criminal claims against me in an attempt to escalate the dispute.
By withholding this email, Michael misled the Cambridgeshire Constabulary into believing that he was an innocent victim of relentless harassment, when in reality, he was launching defamatory accusations, escalating tensions, and using law enforcement as a tool for retaliation. Had the police seen this email, they would have recognized Michael’s bad faith actions, exposed his deceptive legal tactics, and likely dismissed his manipulative abuse of process.
Email 9: Michael Williams’ Continued Engagement in Legal Procedures—Contradicting His Claims of Fear and Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams deliberately omitted from his police submissions, once again demonstrates that he was not a victim of harassment, but an active and engaged participant in the ongoing legal dispute. Instead of showing distress or avoidance, Michael repeatedly instructs me on proper legal service methods, engages in procedural discussions, and accuses me of bad faith—all while falsely claiming harassment.
In this email, Michael:
· Confirms for the third time his willingness to accept legal service, proving that he was not avoiding contact.
· Directs me to official legal documents to educate him on the process, showing his full engagement rather than fear.
· Accuses me of bad faith for not complying with his preferred method of service, a legal dispute rather than harassment.
· Asserts that seeking his residential address is harassment, despite the fact that address discovery is a standard part of legal proceedings, not a threat.
Had Michael truly felt harassed or in danger, he would have ceased all communication, sought immediate legal protection, or blocked contact. Instead, he actively participated in the process, dictated legal procedures, and falsely framed standard legal inquiries as harassment—proving that his police complaint was based on selective and misleading evidence.
From: Michael Williams mgw@ucla.edu
Date: Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:20 PM
To: The Author thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com
Subject: Re: Acknowledgment of Recent Communication
For the third time: I am telling you that I will accept service by mail, at the address I have provided you, with notice and acknowledgment of receipt. Since you do not have legal representation, you may need to do some research to understand that this is a valid method of service. You can start here. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pos015.pdf
Your continued refusal to attempt service in this valid method, your refusal to explain why you do not think this is a valid method of service, and your continued insistence on discovering where we live, appear to be in bad faith. We also view it as another form of harassment and as a threat to our family, which will form the basis of a civil restraining order against you shortly
Michael Williams intentionally omitted this email from his police submission because it proves that he was actively engaging with me on legal matters, contradicting any claim that he was being stalked or harassed. Instead of disengaging, he dictated legal service requirements, falsely accused me of bad faith, and manufactured claims of harassment based on standard legal procedures.
By withholding this email, Michael deceived the Cambridgeshire Constabulary into believing that I was relentlessly pursuing him, when in reality, Michael was a willing participant in legal disputes and was fabricating claims of harassment to manipulate law enforcement. Had the police seen this email, they would have recognized Michael’s deceptive legal tactics and likely dismissed his abuse of process.
Email 10: Michael Williams’ Legal Representation and Willing Engagement—Contradicting His Alleged Fear of Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, which Michael Williams deliberately omitted from his police submissions, further contradicts his claim that he was being relentlessly harassed and in distress. Instead of disengaging, he acknowledges his legal representation, directs legal communications to his attorney, and misrepresents standard legal procedures as harassment.
In this email, Michael:
· Confirms he is represented by counsel and provides legal instructions—a move that indicates strategic legal engagement, not fear or distress.
· Restates that he has accepted legal service, contradicting his claims of avoiding contact.
· Falsely labels further attempts at service as harassment, even though ensuring proper service is a normal legal process, not a criminal act.
· Attempts to control the narrative by shifting communication to his attorney, yet still engaging in the discussion himself.
Had Michael truly been a victim of harassment, he would have ceased all communication, allowed only his attorney to speak on his behalf, or filed a protection order at an earlier stage. Instead, he remained engaged, dictated legal procedures, and selectively framed lawful service of process as harassment—further proving that his claims to law enforcement were strategically misleading.
From: Michael Williams <mgw@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Legal Update and Notice Regarding Service of Process
Date: 7 December 2023 at 21:29:06 GMT
To: The Author <thauthor@michaelgavinwilliams.com>
Cc: Erin McGahey <esm@darlaw.com>
As I think you already know, I am represented by counsel in this matter, Erin McGahey, copied here. You need to direct these communications to her, not to me. Her firm can also accept service on my behalf, so you need to direct service to them.
Given that I have already accepted service by notice and acknowledgement, which you have admitted, we understand your further attempts at service to be yet another form of harassment, but you can explain your objections to the notice and acknowledgement to Erin.
Michael deliberately withheld this email from his police submission because it proves that he was not in distress, but rather an active participant in an ongoing legal dispute. Instead of demonstrating fear or avoidance, this email shows that Michael had legal counsel, was in full control of the situation, and knowingly misrepresented a normal legal process as harassment to police.
By withholding this email, Michael deceived the Cambridgeshire Constabulary into believing he was being unlawfully pursued, when in reality, he was fully engaged in legal manoeuvring, directing service procedures, and strategically manipulating law enforcement for retaliatory purposes. Had the police seen this email, they would have recognized Michael’s duplicity and likely dismissed the Stalking Protection Order application as an abuse of the legal system.
The ten emails presented in this letter provide irrefutable evidence that Michael Gavin Williams has deliberately lied through omission and misrepresentation, selectively hiding his active participation in these communications in order to deceive law enforcement and the courts. Instead of being an innocent victim of harassment, Michael is the primary instigator, aggressor, and agent of escalation in this dispute, repeatedly engaging, provoking, and then manipulating the justice system to serve his own retaliatory ends.
Michael feels emboldened in these deceitful actions because of his geographical distance from the United Kingdom, knowing that his false and misleading reports to law enforcement are unlikely to be challenged due to international jurisdictional barriers. He misuses the legal system as a weapon, relying on selective evidence submission to create a false narrative of victimhood, when in reality, he has:
· Repeatedly engaged in legal threats, taunts, and defamation while omitting these provocations from his reports.
· Encouraged continued correspondence, only to hoard responses and manipulate them as "evidence" of alleged harassment.
· Deliberately avoided blocking communication, despite having the ability to do so at any time with a single click, proving his willingness to escalate the conflict rather than stop it.
· Orchestrated real-life retaliatory actions, including defacing my LinkedIn page and instigating my eviction in Cambridge, proving that he was not merely a passive recipient of messages, but a calculated actor seeking to cause harm while feigning victimhood.
