However Even Though I Have Said This UNDER OATH AND...  🔗 **Source:** [However Even Though I Have Said This UNDER OATH AND...](https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097906586287255871/?rw_tt_thread=True) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [wp-engine-litigation, automattic, legal-exposure, testimony, wordpress-governance] > author: Matt Mullenweg > source: X (@photomatt) > reference: https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097906586287255871/ > date created: 2026-09-10 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > # 🏷️ Title: However even though I have said this UNDER OATH AND... > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🔄 Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix--however-even-though-i-have-said-this-under-oath-and) ### 🔗 References - [Post on X](https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097906586287255871/) — this post. - Companion thread the same day, on infrastructure, the board, and the preservation-order statement — captured separately in this batch as doc `01m25hra30x9va71a37rchzv9d`. ## 📝 Summary - **What happened.** Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) posted a single 37-word statement asserting that he has repeatedly testified, under oath and subject to perjury penalties, on a point that WP Engine's counsel — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, named here with a deliberate typo ("@quinnlarrabee") he calls "funny" — has, in his characterization, exaggerated. - **Why it matters.** This is a public statement, by a named party to active litigation, characterizing both his own sworn testimony and opposing counsel's conduct, posted the same day as a companion thread about board matters and evidence preservation. - **Key stakeholders.** Mullenweg; Quinn Emanuel (WP Engine's counsel); anyone assessing the tone and substance of public statements made by a party during active litigation. - **Risks and tradeoffs.** The post asserts that testimony was given and that it was repeated; it does not state what the testimony was, on what specific point, or in what proceeding. Treating this as proof that the underlying allegation is unfounded would overreach — an assertion of having testified truthfully is not itself evidence that the testimony was accurate or that opposing counsel's position lacks merit. - **Bottom line.** File this as a dated primary statement — what Mullenweg said publicly, when, and in what register — not as a resolved account of the underlying dispute. ## 📖 Main Content The full text, quoted in full because the entire post is one sentence: > [!quote] > However even though I have said this UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY over and over and over, the very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers at @quinnlarrabee have blown this so out of proportion. (actually @quinnemanuel but the typo is funny) Three distinct moves happen in one sentence: 1. **An assertion of repeated sworn testimony.** He says he has stated "this" — an unspecified point, not named in the post — under oath, more than once ("over and over and over"). The all-caps "UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY" is his own emphasis, not a legal term he's citing from a document; it's rhetorical stress on the seriousness of testifying, not a quotation of an oath's actual language. 2. **A characterization of opposing counsel.** "The very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers at @quinnlarrabee" names Quinn Emanuel — WP Engine's counsel in the litigation — and asserts, without specifics, that they have mischaracterized or exaggerated ("blown this so out of proportion") whatever point he's referring to. 3. **A parenthetical correction with a joke.** He confirms the handle he tagged, "@quinnlarrabee," was a typo for "@quinnemanuel," and calls the mistake funny. This is a small but real detail: it shows he's tagging the firm by its actual handle deliberately, not incidentally, while treating the exchange with visible informality given the stakes he's simultaneously invoking. **What the source doesn't establish.** It doesn't say what "this" is — the substance of the testimony is entirely unstated. It doesn't identify the proceeding (deposition, hearing, declaration) in which the testimony was given. And "blown this so out of proportion" is his characterization of opposing counsel's position, not a description of what that position actually claims. All three gaps matter: this post can be read and cited accurately only as an assertion about the existence and repetition of testimony and as a dismissive characterization of the other side, not as a summary of the dispute itself. ## 🗒️ Notes - Posted the same day as the companion thread in this batch (doc `01m25hra30x9va71a37rchzv9d`), which references a preservation order and disappearing messages — plausibly, though not stated explicitly here, the same underlying subject ("this") that he says he's testified about repeatedly. The connection is inferred from timing and topic proximity, not stated in the text itself, and should be flagged as an inference, not fact, if cited elsewhere. - "@quinnlarrabee" does not appear to be a real account associated with Quinn Emanuel; Mullenweg's own parenthetical treats it as a typo for "@quinnemanuel," the firm's actual handle. - No specifics of the underlying allegation, proceeding, or testimony are given anywhere in this 37-word post. ## 📚 References - [@photomatt on X](https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097906586287255871/) — this post. - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan — named as WP Engine's counsel in this post; not independently verified against a law-firm directory in this note. - Companion thread (doc `01m25hra30x9va71a37rchzv9d`) — same day, same litigation context. ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Mullenweg says he's testified repeatedly, under oath, on some unspecified point, and accuses WP Engine's litigation counsel of overstating it. He tags the firm by its actual handle after correcting a typo, treating the correction itself as a small joke. ## 📰 Newsletter - A 37-word post from Matt Mullenweg the same day as his longer thread on infrastructure and evidence preservation: he says he's "said this UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY over and over," and accuses WP Engine's counsel, Quinn Emanuel, of overstating whatever "this" is. - What it doesn't say matters as much as what it does: no specifics on the testimony, the proceeding, or the underlying claim. File as a dated public statement from a party in active litigation, not as a summary of the dispute. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - No distinct action; this is a litigation-adjacent public statement, not developer-facing content. #### OSPO - **Policy & Governance:** none directly actionable from a single unspecific public statement; relevant mainly as a dated data point in a broader litigation timeline being tracked elsewhere. #### Community - No distinct action from this source specifically. #### WordPress - No distinct action from this source specifically. #### The WPOCC - No distinct action from this source specifically. ### FAIR - No distinct action from this source specifically. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - **H1:** The unspecified "this" Mullenweg says he's testified about repeatedly is the same evidence-preservation/disappearing-messages issue referenced in the companion thread posted the same day. - **H2:** The testimony he references was given in a deposition or declaration tied to WP Engine's sanctions motion, rather than open-court testimony, given the timing relative to the litigation. ### 📊 Methodology - For H1: would need the actual court filings (sanctions motion, any response) to confirm the subject matter of the referenced testimony, cross-referenced against this post's date. - For H2: same — public court dockets for the WP Engine v. Automattic litigation would show what testimony, if any, had been given by this date and in what form. ### ❓ Questions - What specific claim or allegation is "this" referring to? - In what proceeding was the testimony he references given? - What does "blown this so out of proportion" mean concretely — does it dispute the facts alleged, or only their characterization? ### 🔮 Future Research - Once public filings are available, cross-reference this post's date against any deposition or declaration testimony from Mullenweg to identify what "this" refers to. - Track whether Quinn Emanuel's actual filings characterize the same point Mullenweg is responding to here, to assess whether "blown out of proportion" is a fair description or a rhetorical dismissal. ### 💡 Implications - **For litigation-adjacent documentation:** a party publicly characterizing opposing counsel's litigation conduct, without naming the specifics, is a pattern worth tracking across a case's public record independent of its merits. - **For public perception during active litigation:** posts like this shape outside narrative about a case before any filings are public, which is itself worth noting as a governance/PR dynamic distinct from the legal questions. - **For anyone citing this post elsewhere:** it should be cited only for what it actually asserts (repeated sworn testimony exists; he characterizes opposing counsel as exaggerating), never as a summary of what the testimony said or whether the underlying claim is accurate. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level: informal register with heavy emphasis markers (all-caps, repeated "over and over and over," a parenthetical joke); estimated Flesch-Kincaid grade 7–8 by ear. No formula was run against the text; this is an estimate from sentence structure and vocabulary, not a scored result. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: the all-caps phrase functions as a visual emphasis device within plain text. - Improve: not applicable beyond what's already present in a single short post. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: none. - Improve: not worth a dedicated audio treatment for a 37-word post. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: conversational, first-person register. - Improve: define "perjury" and "under oath" explicitly for readers unfamiliar with what those legal terms actually require. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: none. - Improve: not applicable to a single short post. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: minimal — the post asserts a conclusion ("blown out of proportion") without showing the reasoning or evidence behind it. - Improve: a logical-learner reader would want the actual claim and the actual testimony stated side by side; neither is present here. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: it directly names and tags another party (Quinn Emanuel), inherently conversational/confrontational. - Improve: linking to the underlying filing or claim being referenced would let a reader assess the characterization themselves. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: a compact, quotable line suited to individual reflection on tone and register. - Improve: none needed. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: none. - Improve: not applicable; no ecological framing exists or belongs here. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: plain text; the all-caps phrase reads identically to a screen reader as emphasis-via-capitalization, which some screen readers announce letter-by-letter or as "all capitals" — a genuine accessibility friction point in the original post's own styling choice, not this note's. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: not applicable — static text, no interactive elements captured. #### Contrast and readability - Present: not evaluable from captured plain text (platform-dependent rendering). #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: not applicable — no layout to test. #### Media and captions - Present: none. #### Forms and interactions - Present: none. #### Standards reference - Not applicable beyond the screen-reader note above: a single plain-text post has no further WCAG-relevant authored surface. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Not applicable — no cultural or regional content. #### Inclusive language - Present: the "very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers" characterization targets a firm's professional competence, not any protected characteristic; not exclusionary language, but pointedly derogatory toward the named firm. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: the post is short and single-threaded, easy to parse structurally; the all-caps emphasis may read as more forceful/aggressive to some readers than intended. #### Representation - Not applicable — no groups or identities represented. #### Psychological safety - Present: the tone is combative toward a named legal adversary (the firm, not an individual); not directed at a private individual or a protected group. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - None present to credit: the post is an assertion and a characterization, not an argument. It states a conclusion ("blown this so out of proportion") without the premises that would support it, so there's no reasoning chain here to evaluate as strong or weak — only a claim. #### Fallacies - **Bare assertion / unsupported characterization:** "have blown this so out of proportion" is stated with no supporting detail about what "this" is or how the characterization is disproportionate. Fix: cite the specific claim being responded to and explain, concretely, why it overstates the facts. - **Ad hominem via wordplay:** "the very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers" attacks the firm's competence rhetorically rather than engaging any specific claim they've made. This is a direct example of attacking the credibility of an opposing party rather than the substance of their position — worth naming plainly as the pattern it is, without treating it as proof the underlying claim is meritless (an attack on credibility doesn't settle whether the claim itself is accurate). #### Tone of voice - Combative and performative: the all-caps emphasis, the repeated "over and over and over," the pun on the firm's name, and the closing joke about the typo together read as a public, informal dismissal aimed at opposing counsel rather than a measured statement. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis Mullenweg is a named party to active litigation and this post directly addresses opposing counsel's conduct in that litigation, so — as with the companion thread — he is in an accused-party posture on the underlying point, and DARVO is a legitimate lens here, evaluated strictly against this specific 37-word text. - **Deny:** not a flat denial of any specific fact — the post doesn't restate or deny a specific allegation, because it never names one. What's present is closer to minimization: asserting that his own account has been given consistently and repeatedly under oath, which functions rhetorically to suggest the matter is settled in his favor, without addressing what the matter actually is. - **Attack:** clearly present. "The very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers at @quinnlarrabee" is a direct, named attack on opposing counsel's competence and credibility, offered instead of engaging the substance of whatever claim prompted the post. This is the strongest and clearest DARVO-consistent element in this specific text. - **Reverse victim/offender:** weak signal, not a clear instance. There's no explicit claim here that he is the victim of Quinn Emanuel's conduct, or that WP Engine/its counsel are the true wrongdoers in the broader dispute — the post stops at "exaggerated," short of casting himself as harmed by the exaggeration. If a reversal exists in his broader public statements, it isn't present in this specific 37-word text. Two of three legs have real textual support (minimization, and a clear attack on counsel's credibility); the third (reverse victim/offender) is not established by this text specifically and shouldn't be read into it. ## 🎯 Conclusion Short, and useful mainly as provenance: what Mullenweg said publicly, when, and in what tone, while litigation involving him and Automattic was active and a sanctions-adjacent issue was apparently live. The attack on opposing counsel's credibility is the clearest rhetorical move in the text; the minimization of "this" being "blown out of proportion" is present but unsupported by any stated specifics. Practical next step for a reader: don't treat "blown out of proportion" as informative about the merits until the actual filing or claim it responds to is identified and read directly. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — However even though I have said this UNDER OATH AND... > Density: fewer than 2 strong, independently atomizable claims in this 37-word source — the post > makes one combined rhetorical move (assert repeated sworn testimony, then dismiss opposing > counsel's characterization of it) rather than two or more separable factual claims. Per the > atom-density rule, that means **zero Literature atoms** below, stated explicitly rather than > split artificially to hit a quota. ### 📚 Literature Atoms Zero atoms. The 37-word post carries one combined assertion-plus-dismissal, not multiple distinct extractable claims — there is no named allegation, proceeding, or specific fact here to atomize beyond what's already quoted in full in Main Content. Splitting "he testified repeatedly" and "he calls the characterization disproportionate" into two atoms would manufacture separateness the single sentence doesn't have; they're one rhetorical unit. ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) Zero candidates. The claim here is specific to this litigation and this moment — "opposing counsel exaggerated an unspecified point I've testified about" — and doesn't generalize into a reusable insight independent of this case. It doesn't survive the reusability filter (Matuschak test): there's no broader pattern here beyond "a litigant dismissed opposing counsel's characterization without detail," which is already captured, with real textual evidence, in this note's DARVO Analysis section rather than as a standalone Permanent note. ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Once public filings are available, identify what "this" refers to and whether Mullenweg's "blown out of proportion" characterization holds up against the actual claim. — #xref - [F2] Check whether "@quinnlarrabee" ever existed as an account, or whether it's purely a typo as Mullenweg's parenthetical states. — #xref ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Do not cite this post as evidence about the underlying litigation's merits in any future writing — it asserts testimony existed, not what it said — context #verification #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Tweets/However Even Though I Have Said This UNDER OATH AND....md|However Even Though I Have Said This UNDER OATH AND... by Matt Mullenweg]] ## Highlights - However even though I have said this UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY over and over and over, the very-good-at-being-very-bad lawyers at [@quinnlarrabee](https://twitter.com/quinnlarrabee) have blown this so out of proportion. (actually [@quinnemanuel](https://twitter.com/quinnemanuel) but the typo is funny) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m25mc9mtsvfm0485jkytc1bn)) - Note: A party to active litigation posting publicly about opposing counsel while a sanctions motion is pending. Establishes that he asserts he testified under oath repeatedly — not what the testimony was, or whether it holds. Record the register, not the merits. - Tags: testimony, atom/literature/h1, wp-engine-litigation ## New Highlights added 2026-09-10 at 10:41 AM - However even though I have said this UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY over and over and over, the very-good-at-being- ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m25w0mytn974mn1sq0dxy76r)) - Note: Credibility attack on opposing counsel. Treat as assertion by a litigant, not established fact. - Tags: alleged, wp-engine-litigation