The High Court Anonymity Order Protecting JZX Is Rewritten After I Forced Elon Musk To Get Involved.
(NB All throughout this article, I use “JZX” to refer to the person whom the High Court Anonymity Order protects.)
This article is a gagged and redacted version of an article I will be able to release in full once the High Court Order is lifted. I am being very careful not to mention the accused’s name. In November 2025, I began fighting to have this High Court Order rescinded, using tactics many would consider guerrilla journalism. Soon, a serious conflict of interest arose when Elon Musk’s X platform threatened to delete my account if I continued. However, I was able to prove that X’s Grok AI was in breach of the High Court Order. Grok was revealing the information that had prompted them to threaten to delete my account. This proved that the anonymity order was defunct, as the information was already in the public domain. This article is the redacted and gagged version of the mostly hidden battle I’ve been having with Elon Musk and X’s legal team. A battle that has led them to become applicants in the High Court case, resulting in significant amendments to the High Court Order. I believe the anonymity order will be fully rescinded in the next month. When it does get rescinded, I will rerelease the unredacted and ungagged version of this article.
I purposely broke the High Court Order. So, surely they’d have to arrest me. It wasn’t a senseless move. The rhyme and reason were clear. The High Court anonymity order protecting JZX was totally defunct. I was able to show that Grok AI on Elon Musk’s X platform could tell that JZX was the subject of the anonymity order, ergo, the information was already in the public domain. An anonymity order should be defunct if it is proven that the information is already in the public domain.
I was willing to be found in contempt of court; I felt free speech was a good enough cause for a few months in prison. I thought the law was meant to be straightforward. If you clearly break the law and hand yourself in to the authorities, you should be arrested. However, the officer I spoke with at Central Police Station in Cardiff had zero intention of arresting me. If the police were not going to sanction me in any way for breaking a High Court order, then what is the point of the High Court?
The High Court was informed that I had broken the order, yet no action followed. Instead of the High Court silencing me, or the police arresting me, JZX’s knight in shining armour on this occasion appeared to be Elon Musk.
Musk’s X platform was the only entity to contact me after I released my article on NEWSPASTE and Substack. They informed me that X was geo-blocking various posts I’d made concerning JZX and the article in question. Even though the High Court and the UK Police weren’t willing to act, X was using the High Court order to silence my journalism. X hired a law firm based in London called Lewis Silkin to threaten the deletion of my account. I responded concisely to Elon Musk’s legal team, whose Cardiff branch is rated a solid 3.9 on Google.
Email to X’s Legal Team on 19 November 2025:
Dear X Legal Team,
I am writing in response to your email notification regarding the withholding of my post (Retracted) in the United Kingdom, based on a claimed violation of a court order. As a journalist, I take this matter extremely seriously, and I believe the action taken may be the result of misleading or abusive legal tactics aimed at suppressing legitimate reporting.
To clarify, I am not aware of any UK court order that prohibits or restricts my ability to report on the allegations against JZX. The only relevant legal proceeding I am aware of is JZX’s ongoing case in the UK High Court against the BBC, which pertains specifically to their intent to name him in a Panorama episode. This action does not extend to independent journalists like myself or to content published on platforms such as X. If a court order has been misrepresented or improperly applied to my content, this could constitute Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) tactics, which are designed to intimidate and silence journalists through the abuse of legal processes.
X’s own policies emphasise transparency and the defence of users’ voices, as outlined in your “Defending and Respecting Our Users’ Voice” guidelines (https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/defending-and-respecting-our-users-voice). These policies commit X to notifying users of legal requests and providing copies of such requests unless legally prohibited (e.g., by a sealed order). Furthermore, your Legal FAQs (https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-legal-faqs) state that X may object to overly broad or defective requests and that users should have the opportunity to evaluate and challenge them. In line with this, I formally request the following information to assess the validity of the claim and protect my rights:
- A full copy of the legal request or complaint received by X, including the alleged court order.
- The identity of the individual or entity who submitted the request (e.g., Mr. JZX or his representatives).
- Details of the specific court action cited, including the case number, issuing court, and any provisions that purportedly apply to my content.
- All internal communications, evaluations, or notes at X related to this request and the decision to withhold my content.
- Confirmation of whether X has independently verified the applicability of the claimed court order to my post, and if so, the basis for that determination.
This request is essential for me to evaluate whether to challenge the withholding, potentially in court, or to pursue other remedies. I note that Mr. JZX has a history of targeting accusers on X, including an incident where an alleged victim’s account was deleted and later reinstated following complaints. If this withholding is part of a pattern of using wealth and influence to suppress journalism, it may violate anti-SLAPP protections.
Additionally, pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), which mirrors the EU GDPR and applies to X as a data controller processing personal data in the UK, I am exercising my right of access. This constitutes a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) for all personal data held by X relating to me in connection with this matter. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Any data processed in relation to the complaint against my account.
- Records of the decision-making process for withholding the content.
- Any communications with third parties (e.g., the complainant or legal authorities) that involve my personal data.
- Any restrictions of previous posts
Under UK GDPR, you are required to provide this information without undue delay and within one month of receipt of this request, free of charge, unless the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. Failure to comply could result in a complaint to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Furthermore, this situation raises concerns under emerging anti-SLAPP frameworks. The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1069), which aims to protect journalists and public participants from abusive litigation, requires member states (and influences UK practices post-Brexit) to implement safeguards against such tactics, including early dismissal of unfounded claims and remedies for defendants. In the UK, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) addresses SLAPPs in the context of economic crimes, and broader anti-SLAPP measures are under consideration to prevent the misuse of courts to silence public interest reporting. X, as a platform operating in these jurisdictions, has an obligation to take its legal responsibilities seriously and not facilitate SLAPP tactics by withholding content without rigorous scrutiny.
I urge X to reinstate access to my post in the UK pending full disclosure and verification that the claimed court order legitimately applies. As a platform committed to free expression, X should not enable the suppression of journalistic work without clear evidence of legal necessity.
I look forward to your prompt response and full cooperation in this matter. Please confirm receipt of this email and provide a reference number for tracking.
Sincerely,
Johnny Vedmore – @JohnnyVedmore
There were multiple issues with Elon Musk’s platform’s enforcement of this particular High Court Order. One issue in particular is vital to highlight. X’s own AI was allowed to report on the identity of JZX in relation to the court order. Hence, the information is already in the public domain. However, X is preventing a human journalist from reporting this detail, going so far as to threaten total deletion of my account on X. This raises a significant quandary. The only entity willing to enforce this High Court order was a platform that, at the same time, systematically violated it.
I responded to Elon Musk’s solicitors, making a vital point:
Why was I, a human, being prevented from reporting what X’s AI is free to report?
When I asked Grok: Are there any known civil cases against [Redacted’s] owner JZX? The AI explained: (N.B. Where I have inserted “JZX”, Grok used the defendant’s real name.)
JZX, the co-owner and joint-chairman of [Redacted], has been involved in several civil legal proceedings over the years, primarily related to his business dealings in publishing, property, and football club ownership. These are distinct from criminal matters (such as his 1970s convictions under the Obscene Publications Act for his adult magazine empire) or ongoing allegations of sexual misconduct, which appear to involve potential criminal investigations rather than filed civil suits.
I then asked Grok: What about the High Court gagging order JZX used to have 5 of Johnny Vedmore’s X posts geo-blocked in the United Kingdom? What case is that court order from? To which Elon Musk’s integrated AI stated:
The gagging order in question is a High Court anonymity order granted to JZX in May 2024. This order stems from a specific civil lawsuit filed against him (anonymized in court documents as a “Redacted”) by a woman alleging sexual abuse when she was 15 years old in the 1990s. The claimant is seeking aggravated damages for the alleged offenses, which JZX denies. The anonymity was approved by Mr Justice Nicklin at the High Court in London to protect JZX’s identity during the proceedings, citing privacy rules and the potential for prejudice in ongoing investigations.
Key Details of the Case
Case Background: The lawsuit claims JZX raped the then-15-year-old girl in a hotel room after providing her with alcohol and paying her £800 for sex. Court documents describe this as a “cash for sex” arrangement, which JZX has admitted to in part but denies involved rape or non-consensual acts. The case is ongoing, with JZX’s legal team arguing the anonymity prevents unfair media scrutiny that could impact related police probes into non-recent sexual offenses.
Court Ruling: On May 8, 2024, the High Court issued the order, stating it applies narrowly to this civil claim. The full anonymized reference is not publicly detailed beyond media descriptions (e.g., no docket like “HXJ v. [Party]” matches exactly, as the case remains sealed under the order). However, reports confirm it as a civil action for damages under English tort law for assault and battery.
No Specific Case Name: Due to the anonymity, the proceedings are not publicly titled with JZX’s name. Media outlets like the BBC and The Athletic refer to it as the “[Redacted] boss sexual abuse civil case.”
Connection to the Geo-Blocking of Vedmore’s 5 X Posts
Johnny Vedmore, an independent journalist, published an article on [Redacted], compiling historical allegations of sexual misconduct against JZX, including references to Epstein connections and unprosecuted claims. Vedmore explicitly notes in the piece that the 2024 anonymity order does not apply to his broader reporting, as it pertains only to the specific 1990s abuse claim.
Despite this, JZX’s legal team reportedly leveraged the order to request X (formerly Twitter) geo-block Vedmore’s posts in the UK. As of late November 2025:
Affected Posts: At least 5 of Vedmore’s X posts linking to or discussing the article were geo-restricted for UK viewers, plus one deletion. Examples include posts from November 19–24, 2025 (e.g., IDs [Redacted] and [Redacted]), where Vedmore tests visibility and accuses X of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) tactics.
Vedmore’s Claims: He argues X complied without verifying the order’s scope, allowing JZX to extend narrow anonymity into blanket suppression of journalism on unrelated allegations. Vedmore has vowed legal action against X for this.
Broader Context: This fits a pattern of injunctions JZX has used, including a 2024 gagging order on [Redacted]’s care home story (debated in UK Parliament as a SLAPP). Vedmore’s posts remain visible outside the UK via VPN.
JZX’s team has not publicly commented on the geo-blocks, but he has denied all abuse allegations, stating they are “baseless” and motivated by financial gain. The civil case continues, with no trial date set as of November 25, 2025. For official updates, check the High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division) records, though access is limited due to anonymity.
The X platform threatened to delete my account for revealing information which their own AI is free to reveal. This clearly throws up serious and sinister competition laws concerning Journalists vs Big Tech.
I understand that I placed the X platform into a complex legal position. Still, I felt the right answer was for X not to censor my work. Instead, they could easily report me to the Police and High Court, or, preferably, make the point to the High Court that the information is already in the public domain. The X platform has strategically censored my work previously to hide Elon Musk’s association with Jeffrey Epstein.
Four days before the 2024 US Election, I released the article Musk and Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier. It documented the first Jeffrey Epstein-funded training course, which Elon Musk attended in 2008, on how to manipulate people surreptitiously through social media. X limited the article’s reach, informing me that they had placed a “label” on my account because they suspected me of spamming. Seven days after the election, they informed me that they had concluded that I hadn’t been guilty of spamming and removed the label.
I saw the communication with the X platform’s UK legal team as an opportunity. I quickly submitted a Subject Access Request regarding my account. Separating my request into various categories. I requested:
- All data processed regarding complaints about my article on JZX (Redacted) and the specified posts.
- Records of any other complaints, reports, or moderation actions against my account since 2024, including those related to my prior reporting on Elon Musk’s associations with Jeffrey Epstein and the Hamilton 68 investigations into algorithmic censorship on the platform (formerly Twitter).
- Details of any interactions, internal or external, where my personal data (including IP addresses, login history, post metadata, direct messages, follower lists, and engagement analytics) has been processed, shared, or disclosed in connection with these matters.
- Evidence of any safeguards applied to protect my data, and confirmation of whether X has supplied you with information that undermines such safeguards or facilitates unlawful dissemination of my personal data.
- Copies of all correspondence, emails, notes, or logs between Lewis Silkin LLP, X, Mr JZX (or his representatives), and any other parties concerning me or my content.
Some of my requests were unlikely to be granted. Still, I believe in casting a wide net and hoping to catch as much as possible. Although they refused to supply some of the information which I requested, they couldn’t refuse to process my legal demand entirely. In fact, what they did supply was heavily coded and was hard to decipher. But not impossible to decipher. And what the small amount of information revealed was that one of Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein, and Peter Thiel’s business partners has been targeting my X account for years.
Elon Musk’s Legal Team’s Response To My Request
The response of the X platforms’ chosen legal representatives in the UK, Lewis Silkin LLP, was surprising in places, and less so in others. I’ll go through each of their responses,
Data Category 1: All data processed regarding complaints about my article on JZX (Redacted) and the specified posts.
We have interpreted this request as asking XIUC for a copy of information that XIUC processes about complaints that individuals have submitted to X regarding your following 9 X posts that you specify in your letter dated 2 March 2026. We are unable to provide you with a copy of this information because such disclosure would infringe the rights and freedoms of third parties, namely the users who have submitted those complaints. However, please find below a summary table showing XIUC’s record of the numbers of complaints made by X users in relation to each of these posts.
They then supplied me with a table showing each post that X was geo-blocking, along with the number of complaints made about each post. In fact, none of the posts had complaints from X users, and even though they refused to supply some details, some things can be inferred from the information they did provide. Firstly, it wasn’t an X user who reported the posts, and if it had been the Police or High Court, then X’s legal team would have said so. It is very likely that JZX’s legal team put pressure on X.
Data Category 2: Records of any other complaints, reports, or moderation actions against my account since 2024, including those related to my prior reporting on Elon Musk’s associations with Jeffrey Epstein and the Hamilton 68 investigations into algorithmic censorship on the platform (formerly Twitter).
We are unable to provide you with an unredacted copy of such complaints / reports / moderation actions because such disclosure would infringe the rights and freedoms of third parties, namely the users who have submitted those complaints / reports, and prejudice (i.e., assist the circumvention of) the effectiveness of XIUC’s moderation processes. These processes are in place to enforce X’s platform rules (https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-rules), which are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.
Accordingly, please find attached a redacted spreadsheet showing XIUC’s record of the complaints/reports made by X users in relation to your X account (@JohnnyVedmore) during that time period.
Worksheet 1 (Account) shows XIUC’s record of complaints / reports made against your X account.
Worksheet 2 (Posts and DMs) shows complaints / reports made against your posts / direct messages.
Our approach to redaction has been to remove from the spreadsheet those cells that:
● contain information that does not relate to you;
● contain information that identifies third parties; or
● contain information about XIUC’s moderation processes which, if disclosed, would prejudice (i.e., assist the circumvention of) the effectiveness of those processes.
The two work sheets which X’s legal team supplied me were hard to decipher. Still, I used the platform’s AI to analyse them, and we’ll discuss that soon.
Data Category 3: Details of any interactions, internal or external, where my personal data
(including IP addresses, login history, post metadata, direct messages, follower lists, and
engagement analytics) has been processed, shared, or disclosed in connection with these
matters.
We have interpreted this request as asking XIUC for a copy of communications it holds that contain your personal data and which relate to complaints / reports made in relation to your X account (@JohnnyVedmore) and the 9 X posts referred to above.
Having searched for and considered such communications, we have decided to refuse this aspect of your request. This is because such communications either:
● comprise confidential communications between XIUC and its professional legal advisers, including Lewis Silkin LLP, for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice; such communications are exempt from disclosure (meaning we are not required to provide these to you); or
● contain information about XIUC’s moderation processes which, if disclosed, would prejudice (i.e., assist the circumvention of) the effectiveness of those processes. These processes are in place to enforce X’s platform rules (https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-rules), which are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.
Data Category 4: Evidence of any safeguards applied to protect my data, and confirmation of
whether X has supplied you with information that undermines such safeguards or facilitates
unlawful dissemination of my personal data.
Article 15 of the UK GDPR does not grant you the right to such evidence.
However, please note that XIUC has appropriate organisational and technical measures in place to protect the security of your personal data. XIUC has confidentially provided information, including your personal data, to Lewis Silkin LLP, as its professional legal adviser, for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice. As a regulated law firm, Lewis Silkin LLP is under strict regulatory obligations in terms of how it lawfully uses such information.
Data Category 5: Copies of all correspondence, emails, notes, or logs between Lewis Silkin LLP, X, Mr JZX (or his representatives), and any other parties concerning me or my content.
Your personal data contained in correspondence between XIUC and Lewis Silkin LLP is exempt from disclosure (meaning we are not required to provide this to you) since it consists of confidential communications between XIUC and its professional legal adviser (Lewis Silkin LLP) for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice.
What the Evidence Shows
I was extremely interested in the worksheets which X had provided. Among other details, such as dates and times, the documents showed lists of ID numbers of X posts with short-hand notes. There was no better tool than X’s Grok AI for this job, as it is integrated into the X platform and summarises content in various ways. After analysing the documents and providing me with various reports about the information, I asked Grok to summarise the findings of both reports. Elon Musk’s own AI stated:
The two documents provide clear evidence of a sustained, multi-year reporting campaign against the X account @JohnnyVedmore (user ID 255411008). The SC.pdf log from 2018 to 2023 records approximately 180 report entries, overwhelmingly categorized as Abuse or Private Information, with the vast majority resolved as “No Violation” by X’s systems. These reports cluster in coordinated spikes—often 10 to 20 identical complaints on a single day—targeting the same themes of investigative journalism involving Nicole Junkermann, Jeffrey Epstein, and related intelligence connections. Despite the high volume, X consistently cleared the content and took no enforcement action against the account.
When combined with the RTP.pdf moderation queue (covering 2024–2025 activity), the pattern extends to the present day. Specific PostIDs, primarily related to Junkermann exposés and censorship battles, appear repeatedly as NOT_REVIEWED or OK, showing the exact same material continues to be mass-flagged years later. This indicates an ongoing, targeted effort to trigger reviews and suppress public-interest reporting rather than genuine rule violations, as X’s own records repeatedly confirmed no breaches occurred.
It was clear that X had chosen to give me very limited detail in response to my official Subject Access Request. The SC file they provided covered 2018 to 2023, and the RTP file they provided covered 2024 to 2025. They were both heavily coded. However, once deciphered, they showed that Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein’s business associate had been systematically targeting my X account for years.
As a journalist, I am being banned from reporting information based on a High Court order, which appears unenforceable. This throws up masses of questions concerning the High Court’s continuing protection of wealthy, powerful and prolific sex offenders. But it also means that the United Kingdom High Court has been made ineffective by Artificial Intelligence.
If I were to be arrested or prosecuted for breaking the High Court order, it would be a case of shooting the messenger. I am stating clearly: “A high court anonymity order can only be enforced if the information isn’t in the public domain. And this information is definitely in the public domain.”
If they want to arrest me, harass me, or have my accounts deleted for reporting on a High Court order being clearly defunct and unenforceable, then it will be a tragedy for freedom of speech. They cannot cover up what people already know. They cannot retract information once it’s in the public discourse. This is not why the High Court of the United Kingdom exists. Justice is not served this way.
The High Court Justices who granted this anonymity order to JZX in the first place and who have since redefined its scope while leaving it partly intact have not yet understood 21st-century technology. Artificial Intelligence has already changed many parts of our society. The High Court Justices need to catch up, too.
When the High Court anonymity order was altered on 28th April 2026, two new applicants were named in the order itself. Alongside the BBC and Times Media, X Internet Unlimited Company was named, and at the end of paragraph 6, they added: “and to Lewis Silkin LLP, Solicitors for X Internet Unlimited Company”.
The altered text to this anonymity order will probably see the house of cards tumble. Soon, everyone should be asking if the High Court is fit for the modern era. And should a human journalist be gagged while Elon Musk’s AI can report without such restrictions?
Whether Elon Musk wanted to or not, I forced his platform and its legal team to get involved in this case. A High Court case that could throw the journalistic cat amongst the AI pigeons.
The amendments made to the High Court Order will allow a certain MSM platform to release a long-planned documentary within the next month. That will likely lead to more allegations, prosecutions, and the rescinding of the current High Court Order.
Then we can have a proper conversation.
Leave a Reply