Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Katymcwaity]

Will the courts be impartial, since they are the Queen's court and the case is against Her Majesty's granddaughter-in-law? I’m afraid I might be getting too cynical here! Could the Daily Mail go to the European Courts if it’s not found in their favour in the English courts, what with Brexit and everything happening at the end of the month?

Yes, of course. Hence why the supreme court found against the government re closing down parliament. If the court did find against the Daily Mail, they could appeal but there has to be a good reason like the judge has wrongly applied the law. Europe doesn’t come into it unless Meghan decides to go to European Court of Humans Rights(this is nothing to do with been in or out of EU or brexit) if she doesn’t win. I don’t think I would want to drag it out but I guess if you want to make a point, then you keep going.

 

[LadyGlendower]

Settling with a NDA saves face and money for both sides but we're talking high profile businesses and personalities so who knows what will happen.

 

[Eskimo]

This is a mess and I am sure they are trying to settle it out of court.... The DM is willing for it to go to trail because the media will generate tons of sales out of all the information that will come out. There is no way the Sussexes win this, PR wise.

 

[Pranter]

I saw a clip earlier that said the DM could be fined up to 4 percent (20 million pounds) of their earnings in the European market.


LaRae

 

[LadyGlendower]

I saw a clip earlier that said the DM could be fined up to 4 percent (20 million pounds) of their earnings in the European market.


LaRae

Fined for what? Were they trying to say that's how big a settlement can be or there is another law or regulation under copyright law that carries that penalty? hmmmm---thanks for the info

 

[Pranter]

I think the context was the fine by the court as a settlement.


LaRae

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I really don't understand Thomas Markle.

I think in the begining things where said and done by both sides that got them to this point.

But how does he not see that giving the Mail on Sunday copies of his text are not going to improve his relationship with his daughter? There are a lot of things I can say about Meghan (especially after the last week) buts its interesting to note that she states that Thomas Markle was laid astray by the Mail on Sunday (and doesn't blame him for the situation) and he assists them with this lawsuit! Just like he talks to Piers Morgan who has nothing nice to say about her.

I would love to understand how his mind works.

The public interest things is a legit defense...but know about personal and family relationships with people who are not public individuals...that's dicey.

Absolutely agree. I've seen some people on Twitter say that when you hear that Meghan is estranged from her father it's inevitable she and Harry have moved to Canada, but I think if Thomas Markle was my father I wouldn't want to be involved with him either...!

 

[Madame Verseau]

Up to a 20 million pound fine that can take a bite out of the earnings? Meghan's case must be strong for DM to be so desperate to bring in Markle to make this go away.

 

[Eskimo]

Up to a 20 million pound fine that can take a bite out of the earnings? Meghan's case must be strong for DM to be so desperate to bring in Markle to make this go away.

It is not a big chunk if they can recoup those monies from writing about the trail and whatever information comes out inn n n it

 

[Osipi]

Personally, I think its a low blow to even think of using a family member, no matter how distasteful that family member has treated his daughter, to further their case in court.

I'm definitely in agreement with Madame Verseau that the MoS is sinking to low depths. If they believe their case has merits to win in court in the first place, they wouldn't have to be dragging Mr. Markle into this as the "monkey in the middle" so to speak. Using Mr. Markle, to me, reeks of psychological warfare tactics.

 

[Ista]

Personally, I think its a low blow to even think of using a family member, no matter how distasteful that family member has treated his daughter, to further their case in court.

I'm definitely in agreement with Madame Verseau that the MoS is sinking to low depths. If they believe their case has merits to win in court in the first place, they wouldn't have to be dragging Mr. Markle into this as the "monkey in the middle" so to speak. Using Mr. Markle, to me, reeks of psychological warfare tactics.

I am no fan of the MoS, but they are not the ones who brought the lawsuit, and they have a right to defend themselves. The ickiness comes from TM's willingness to be a witness, although as the recipient of the letter, and the person who gave it to the MoS, he might have been forced to testify no matter what.

I cannot imagine why it would come as a surprise to anyone, including the plaintiff, that he would end up giving testimony. Who his testimony ends up benefitting remains to be seen.

 

[tausi]

I don’t think MoS are using Thomas Markle as their main defense. I think the goal is to create as much drama as possible to sell papers. Whatever fine they end up paying, if any, it will be a small chunky of change compared to how much money they will make from prolonged drama from the case.

 

[Sionevar]

The whole thing is just desperately, awfully sad. And to come to a head this week, of all weeks...

 

[Jacknch]

Personally, I think its a low blow to even think of using a family member, no matter how distasteful that family member has treated his daughter, to further their case in court.

I'm definitely in agreement with Madame Verseau that the MoS is sinking to low depths. If they believe their case has merits to win in court in the first place, they wouldn't have to be dragging Mr. Markle into this as the "monkey in the middle" so to speak. Using Mr. Markle, to me, reeks of psychological warfare tactics.

Indeed, I agree.

There are limits to what I find acceptable in situations like this and whilst ordinarily I am prepared to stretch the limits of acceptability, the concept of a father testifying against his daughter (with the possible exception of a criminal trial) goes beyond what I think is right.

On the one hand, I feel that the Sussex's were absolutely justified in bringing the Court case. I have no interest whatsoever in hearing about letters, text messages and phone calls between the Duchess of Sussex and her father.
It holds no interest to me and, consequently, it follows that it should hold no public interest either.

On the other hand, silence can sometimes be golden.

I do wonder whether they expected it to turn out like this - they are very brave to have brought the Court case looking at it in hindsight.

It gravely concerns me that, ordinarily, such an issue would result in a quick out-of-court settlement and all done and forgotten. Yet it is being pursued and, by all accounts, vigorously defended.

 

[LauraS3514]

Ah yes - there is a difference between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public"

 

[LadyGlendower]

Indeed, I agree.

There are limits to what I find acceptable in situations like this and whilst ordinarily I am prepared to stretch the limits of acceptability, the concept of a father testifying against his daughter (with the possible exception of a criminal trial) goes beyond what I think is right.

On the one hand, I feel that the Sussex's were absolutely justified in bringing the Court case. I have no interest whatsoever in hearing about letters, text messages and phone calls between the Duchess of Sussex and her father.
It holds no interest to me and, consequently, it follows that it should hold no public interest either.

On the other hand, silence can sometimes be golden.

I do wonder whether they expected it to turn out like this - they are very brave to have brought the Court case looking at it in hindsight.

It gravely concerns me that, ordinarily, such an issue would result in a quick out-of-court settlement and all done and forgotten. Yet it is being pursued and, by all accounts, vigorously defended.

This. The worst outcome for the Sussexes is that they decide to drop the suit to make the onslaught of coverage stop since when they filed it they had IMO both the legal and ethical high ground secured.

I wonder, but have no idea, what the DM legal team might have in their pocket beside Mr. Markle's threatened appearance.

 

[Hallo girl]

The whole thing is just desperately, awfully sad. And to come to a head this week, of all weeks...

Do you think M & H knew this would be coming out this week,

Thomas Markle has nothing to lose, his daughter has cut off contact with him he has never met his son in law or baby grandson.

Mud sticks , even if only 50 % believe them, there are a contradictions, here. The caring young woman who visits womens' shelters , feeds the homeless etc etc and the daughter who sends dubious text messages to her father, doesn't introduce her husband or her new baby to him. Excludes him from the christening .
These messages shine a light on behaviour,

 

[justvisiting]

The whole thing is just desperately, awfully sad. And to come to a head this week, of all weeks...

I actually wonder if the lawsuit factored into their decision to go this week. I was really surprised they sued - there was a chance of opening up the door that Meghan, Harry or both might be deposed or have to testify. And once you're on the stand, or being deposed, things can go sideways. I don't know british law at all, but its next to impossible to depose a person who isn't in the country.

I thought it was telling that they didn't use the palace's standard attorneys for this, but went outside and used a firm known for being aggressive. Lawyers who aren't aggressive aren't lazy or scared - they are cautious, particularly of how a lawsuit can backfire. I wonder if their attorneys informed them they are about to be deposed.

 

[Ista]

This. The worst outcome for the Sussexes is that they decide to drop the suit to make the onslaught of coverage stop since when they filed it they had IMO both the legal and ethical high ground secured.

I wonder, but have no idea, what the DM legal team might have in their pocket beside Mr. Markle's threatened appearance.

I agree with all of this, but especially the bolded. I always felt that Meghan had the right to bring the lawsuit, and had an excellent chance of prevailing. Whether it was the prudent thing to do, is another whole question. But it is becoming clear, if it wasn't already, that Meghan and Harry may not be much given to doing things with a great deal of forethought.

 

[wartenberg7]

Ah yes - there is a difference between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public"

If you get involved with a soap opera actress you shouldn´t be surprised if your life becomes a soap opera...

 

[poppy7]

I agree with all of this, but especially the bolded. I always felt that Meghan had the right to bring the lawsuit, and had an excellent chance of prevailing. Whether it was the prudent thing to do, is another whole question. But it is becoming clear, if it wasn't already, that Meghan and Harry may not be much given to doing things with a great deal of forethought.

I think they react, not respond. And that is the downfall.

 

[ACO]

If you get involved with a soap opera actress you shouldn´t be surprised if your life becomes a soap opera...

The Windsors are one of the biggest soaps operas of this century. This is why we have hit shows based off them. Let's not act like they are something they not. They are a hot mess themselves and we have plenty evidence to back it up.

I don't think anyone is settling with the lawsuit. It will go on and what happens will happen. At this point I don't see anyone backing down.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I don't think anyone is backing down, but DM is really going low. DM has put in court filings that Markle has not meet Archie. The baby has no bearing in the case. DM is desperate and Markle is trying to use the case to force Meghan to let him see Archie. I'd like to see Markle explain why he hasn't had a relationship with his five adult non royal grandchildren, two he never met.

As for the suit there had been talk of suing since February 2019; the suit was filed in October.

 

[MARG]

Yes, the timing of the suit was unfortunate but it's timing had more to do with the Solicitors and the Court itself than the Sussexes, a fact that the media are well aware of.

As to information pertaining to the minor child, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, it is irrelevant to a case of Copyright Infringement. Mr Markle can give testimony relevant to the case but I very much doubt the Judge will allow him to use said testimony to "go off script" so to speak.

 

[wartenberg7]

The Windsors are one of the biggest soaps operas of this century. This is why we have hit shows based off them. Let's not act like they are something they not. They are a hot mess themselves and we have plenty evidence to back it up.

I don't think anyone is settling with the lawsuit. It will go on and what happens will happen. At this point I don't see anyone backing down.

I didn´t feel it was a "soap opera" during the past-Diana-years and before the actress created such a mess AT ALL!

 

[Curryong]

No Windsor soap operas post Diana? Well, there was the aborted trial of Burrell the butler, a murky incident that involved a blackmail attempt on Prss Margaret's son David which went to trial but was virtually suppressed in the media. And of course the fake sheikh thing with Sophie Wessex, not to mention the cash for access of the Fergie scandal which occupied tabloid attention for days at a time. And that is just from two minutes of my thinking about the post Diana years!

 

[JR76]

No Windsor soap operas post Diana? Well, there was the aborted trial of Burrell the butler, a murky incident that involved a blackmail attempt on Prss Margaret's son David which went to trial but was virtually suppressed in the media. And of course the fake sheikh thing with Sophie Wessex, not to mention the cash for access of the Fergie scandal which occupied tabloid attention for days at a time. And that is just from two minutes of my thinking about the post Diana years!

Harry's Nazi uniform, Harry naked in Vegas, the years of Waity-Katie, Prince Philip and his usual antics, Prince Andrew stepping down as trade envoy because of his friendship with Epstein and his murky business dealings, Princess Michael being Princess Michael... The list is endless

 

[Lilyflo]

No Windsor soap operas post Diana? Well, there was the aborted trial of Burrell the butler, a murky incident that involved a blackmail attempt on Prss Margaret's son David which went to trial but was virtually suppressed in the media. And of course the fake sheikh thing with Sophie Wessex, not to mention the cash for access of the Fergie scandal which occupied tabloid attention for days at a time. And that is just from two minutes of my thinking about the post Diana years!

Oh indeed, I can think of another 5 big ones right now. It's a perpetual soap opera with a large cast of characters who take it in turns to play the villain, the saint, the hero & the clown.

 

[ladongas]

“Mr. Markle, are you being paid to give testimony here today?”

 

[ACO]

Harry's Nazi uniform, Harry naked in Vegas, the years of Waity-Katie, Prince Philip and his usual antics, Prince Andrew stepping down as trade envoy because of his friendship with Epstein and his murky business dealings, Princess Michael being Princess Michael... The list is endless

Right? Give me a break with this idea that this family was pure and drama free until Meghan Markle arrived. Such power one gives her.