Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Madame Verseau]

Brava for Meghan for keeping a copy of the letter. I wonder who is sweating more. ..

MoS- it declined comment when the story broke. It knew it stepped in it. I bet the lawyers are going over every document Dad and Samantha sold them to check if the paper has further exposure.

Thomas Markle - this is strike three for Daddy when if comes to falsehoods. In the interview after the lawsuit broke Dad claimed Meghan never asked about his health and Meghan's letter says otherwise. I wonder if Dad now fears retribution if MoS has to pay up.

[Chloep]

Originally Posted by Somebody

He didn't for about 6 months. That was, until her friends told about the letter... So the provocation worked

You mean those 6 months where he repeatedly agreed to smear his pregnant daughter for money and repeatedly lied about her never having contacted him.
All while claiming to worry for her 'well being' and insinuating that Harry and the RF are keeping her 'imprisoned' and refusing to let her speak to him?

Selective amnesia is a convenient thing, no?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Brava for Meghan for keeping a copy of the letter. I wonder who is sweating more. ..

MoS- it declined comment when the story broke. It knew it stepped in it. I bet the lawyers are going over every document Dad and Samantha sold them to check if the paper has further exposure.

Thomas Markle - this is strike three for Daddy when if comes to falsehoods. In the interview after the lawsuit broke Dad claimed Meghan never asked about his health and Meghan's letter says otherwise. I wonder if Dad now fears retribution if MoS has to pay up.

None of the above figures into the lawsuit for copyright infringement. This is the Sussex's lawyers going to battle against the MoS's lawyers. Other Mos/Daily Mail/Associated Newspaper articles and interactions with people outside of the court case involving this sole letter will not happen.

Thomas Markle isn't part of this either at all. The article from the Guardian states that Meghan has the original which shows the exclusion of statements made about the tabloid press and the section where she states her concerns for her father's well being. This is to amplify the MoS's willful edit of a private and personal letter to "suit their own agenda" so to speak and this infringes on Meghan's copyright ownership of intellectual property (the letter).

I'm sick of any rehash of the soap opera called "As The Stomach Churns" featuring the latest tabloid article on a fart heard around the world but important because its a royal relative. Lets just stick to the legal cases themselves without drawing in more tabloid speculations? I'd appreciate it immensely.

[DeeT]

Originally Posted by Somebody

He didn't for about 6 months. That was, until her friends told about the letter... So the provocation worked

That’s not true at all. While certain media & people were constantly bullying Meghan to contact her father. He was giving interviews in tabloids & appearing on TV. Irritatingly even BBC News gave this man a platform to bully pregnant Meghan & lie about her as he claimed that she hadn’t contacted him, all the while he had her letter. Her friends did not speak out until after he made all of the dishonest claims on tv.

No one forced the media to run any of the false stories or print the letter. Thank goodness Duchess Meghan kept a copy of her letter, very much needed when dealing with dishonesty from a family member and malicious, unethical press.

[soapstar]

Let’s stick to discussing the lawsuit and the media outlets involved and not turn this into a general discussion about the British media and tabloids.

Let’s also not rehash Meghan’s relationship with her father.

Any further off-topic comments will be deleted.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Zaira

Its funny because I remember several commentators claiming way back last summer that she should just reach out to her dad! Even if he sells her out, at least she tried. And several even said she should keep a copy of all correspondence for protection.

Its funny how things change. People really just move the goal posts constantly.

It was extremely smart of Meghan to keep a copy given her father's antics. I would have done the same. She could have sent the letter in hope of him doing the right thing, but still protect herself.

I also remember many people saying she should do this as well. It was actually a very wise thing and likely she was encouraged by her lawyers and other higher ups because Thomas is a loose cannon. It is a way to protect oneself "just in case" something happens. And of course it did.

This details keep changing. First it was not edited. Then it was by Thomas. Now she says she has it in full and no comment. Well it will be dealt with and the courts has plenty evidence to reach whatever decision they deem fit.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Zaira

Its funny because I remember several commentators claiming way back last summer that she should just reach out to her dad! Even if he sells her out, at least she tried. And several even said she should keep a copy of all correspondence for protection.

Its funny how things change. People really just move the goal posts constantly.

It was extremely smart of Meghan to keep a copy given her father's antics. I would have done the same. She could have sent the letter in hope of him doing the right thing, but still protect herself.

I completely agree and I remember those comments as well.

I'm so glad Meghan took the measures to protect herself, it would've been such a nice surprise to her had it proven unnecessary, but here we are...

[Osipi]

I would also go as far as to suggest that before even writing that letter, Meghan consulted with their team of lawyers that have been actively watching what had been going on since the very beginning. Most likely, even before Harry released his own statement when his relationship with Meghan became public knowledge.

Meghan may have been advised to give a copy of this letter to be filed away with her lawyers before the letter was even mailed. Just in case. It reminds me of a quote from the character of Lazarus Long in Heinein's sci-fi book "Time Enough For Love" that states, "Trust everyone but never sit with your back to the door".

[Madame Verseau]

I wonder if MoS thought it got the original and only copy from Dad. I bet its lawyers didn't except Meghan to have a copy. The new court filing from Meghan's lawyers said MoS didn't reach out to the royal family or Meghan before going to print and that is suppose to be standard procedure. MoS has some explaining to do - to the judge.

[Osipi]

Are we, then, actually surprised that all the MoS could come up with is "No Comment"?

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the MoS offers a last minute settlement out of court or two and they are rejected by Meghan's lawyers who seem to know what they're doing and want to be in front of a judge.

[Leopoldine]

With everything else going on this fall season in the UK, it seems extraordinarily self-centered for wealthy Meghan and Harry to be bleating about photographers and gossip columnists.

Time was, when there were big government decisions afoot, HM was able to tamp down family announcements and news in order to not to interfere with her government's pressing business.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

With everything else going on this fall season in the UK, it seems extraordinarily self-centered for wealthy Meghan and Harry to be bleating about photographers and gossip columnists.

Time was, when there were big government decisions afoot, HM was able to tamp down family announcements and news in order to not to interfere with her government's pressing business.

Yeah how self centered for people to worry about people breaking multiple laws in order to make money off them .


And as has been repeatedly stated the laws protect every European citizen no matter how wealthy they are .The couple tried negotiating with the MOS over what they did and Harry is part of a class action that concerns thousands of people a good number just ordinary people



I mean the papers could maybe try not to hack phones ,use stolen medical data or breach copyright just to make a few more quid for their billionaire owners .

[DeeT]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Are we, then, actually surprised that all the MoS could come up with is "No Comment"?

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the MoS offers a last minute settlement out of court or two and they are rejected by Meghan's lawyers who seem to know what they're doing and want to be in front of a judge.

MoS were malicious & I hope they pay enormously for unethical standards. There were plenty of events to cover yet they chose to bully a pregnant woman. They initially embargoed the article to prevent info being published in time for a retraction. It’s disgusting that some people think economic status determines whether bullying will impact one’s mental health or the health of a pregnancy.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

With everything else going on this fall season in the UK, it seems extraordinarily self-centered for wealthy Meghan and Harry to be bleating about photographers and gossip columnists.

Time was, when there were big government decisions afoot, HM was able to tamp down family announcements and news in order to not to interfere with her government's pressing business.

The way I see it, Harry and Meghan aren't "bleating" empty noises about something that, because they're wealthy, they should just push it under the carpet and give an exasperated sigh of "oh well.... ".

They're taking legal action to a court of law in the UK as would most Britons in the same situation (in fact, there's a group of Britons suing in the hacking case) regardless of their income. *This* is actually the UK government at work for the people. The government (Parliament) makes the laws. The courts enforce those laws.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by DeeT

MoS were malicious & I hope they pay enormously for unethical standards. There were plenty of events to cover yet they chose to bully a pregnant woman. They initially embargoed the article to prevent info being published in time for a retraction. It’s disgusting that some people think economic status determines whether bullying will impact one’s mental health or the health of a pregnancy.

Actually, the case isn't about bullying at all although if the case is won, the monies will donated to an anti-bullying campaign. Its about an unlawful use of intellectual property that belongs to Meghan (her private letter) which was obtained by the MoS and abridged to suit their own needs and agendas. That is infringement of copyright. The MoS's needs and agendas don't figure in to any judgement that will be handed down in court as the focus is on copyright infringement solely.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Actually, the case isn't about bullying at all although if the case is won, the monies will donated to an anti-bullying campaign. Its about an unlawful use of intellectual property that belongs to Meghan (her private letter) which was obtained by the MoS and abridged to suit their own needs and agendas. That is infringement of copyright. The MoS's needs and agendas don't figure in to any judgement that will be handed down in court as the focus is on copyright infringement solely.

I beg to differ on this point, according to what a legal spokesperson for
Schillings said when the lawsuit was filed

"We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband."

“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”

He clearly states that it is part of campaign by this media group, and the issued proceedings are to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

With everything else going on this fall season in the UK, it seems extraordinarily self-centered for wealthy Meghan and Harry to be bleating about photographers and gossip columnists.

Time was, when there were big government decisions afoot, HM was able to tamp down family announcements and news in order to not to interfere with her government's pressing business.

Yeah, right, because holding the tabloid media accountable for violating copyright law and hacking cellphones isn't "pressing business."

Lawsuits hardly qualify as "family announcements and news."

As Steve Coogan (himself a tabloid target) has correctly pointed out, some tabloid victims "have no money" and "don't have the means to take legal action."

https://news.sky.com/story/steve-coo...laims-11831731

The Sussexes aren't the only victims of the tabloid media's illegal and unethical behavior. If victims without financial resources don't sue the tabloids because they can't, and the wealthy don't because it's self-centered, who will?

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by alvinking

I beg to differ on this point, according to what a legal spokesperson for
Schillings said when the lawsuit was filed

"We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband."

“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”

He clearly states that it is part of campaign by this media group, and the issued proceedings are to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda

Exactly. The case is being brought in a court of law based on breaches against intellectual property (copyright infringement). But morally and ethically, it's also about relentless bullying and media exploitation, which has in turn provided fuel & encouragement to vile online trolls. The MoS and some of their supporters want to focus the blame on the online trolls and on the provider of the letter, rather than owning up to their own reprehensible motivations and culpability.

[Osipi]

Perhaps I stated it wrong in my previous post about the copyright infringement being the sole focus of the court proceedings. I meant to express that the needs and agendas of the MoS against Meghan and even Harry *as a whole* won't be addressed but certainly, how those needs and agendas figured into the editing and publishing of Meghan's intellectual property, in this specific case, most certainly figure in.

We've known since the lawsuit was announced that any settlement won in the court case will be donated to an anti-bullying campaign. This, in and of itself, tells us just how Harry and Meghan have connected the dots with this case to the underlying cause of the lawsuit to begin with.

Thanks for the heads up.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yeah, right, because holding the tabloid media accountable for violating copyright law and hacking cellphones isn't "pressing business."

Lawsuits hardly qualify as "family announcements and news."

As Steve Coogan (himself a tabloid target) has correctly pointed out, some tabloid victims "have no money" and "don't have the means to take legal action."

https://news.sky.com/story/steve-coo...laims-11831731

The Sussexes aren't the only victims of the tabloid media's illegal and unethical behavior. If victims without financial resources don't sue the tabloids because they can't, and the wealthy don't because it's self-centered, who will?

Agreed it amazes me how so many justify the media violating the law by blaming the victims of said actions. The laws are there to protect ALL and hold people accountable. Like you said some can't afford to take actions, and those who can are expected to just let it go because they have the financial resources.