Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Duke of Marmalade]

Meghan is ready to take the stand against her father, lawyer says she is prepared for high-stakes courtroom showdown with Thomas Markle.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...two-years-despite-claiming-felt-harassed.html

 

[Nico]

Meghan is ready to take the stand against her father, lawyer says she is prepared for high-stakes courtroom showdown with Thomas Markle.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...two-years-despite-claiming-felt-harassed.html

Sounds entertaining.
She's playing the role of her life, after all ...

 

[Osipi]

Doesn't make much sense to me. The court case is being held in the UK. Meghan is in LA and I'm assuming Thomas Markle is in Mexico.

With the coronavirus and orders to stay in place and travel restrictions pretty much global, how do they expect to have them all have a showdown in court? A video conference?

It just seems illogical to me at this time.

 

[Denville]

Doesn't make much sense to me. The court case is being held in the UK. Meghan is in LA and I'm assuming Thomas Markle is in Mexico.

With the coronavirus and orders to stay in place and travel restrictions pretty much global, how do they expect to have them all have a showdown in court? A video conference?

It just seems illogical to me at this time.

Presmably as the case is going ahead, it will be done by Video or skype...

 

[Claire]

I am a bit confused. I see in the news that Meghan has accused the media of manipulating, harassing, humiliating and exploiting her father. if her father testifies that in no way does he feel that he was treated so - doesn't the whole case fall apart. Unless they can prove that he is incapable of his own judgement how can they claim this?

 

[Denville]

I am a bit confused. I see in the news that Meghan has accused the media of manipulating, harassing, humiliating and exploiting her father. if her father testifies that in no way does he feel that he was treated so - doesn't the whole case fall apart. Unless they can prove that he is incapable of his own judgement how can they claim this?

I don't think that Thomas markle, is going to be an effective witness...

 

[Madame Verseau]

@Claire - I agree. Meghan's lawyers would have to prove DM blackmailed Dad to do the hit pieces on her or he is not of sound mind to the point that a person without medical training would know it. But there is a danger there. MoS wants the malicious intent argument thrown out. If it stays her dad is going to be looked at real hard and his role in this, as if he was a willing co-conspirator. If the judge finds the paper is at fault and acted with malice he can see that equally applies to Tom.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I think the lawsuit is a mistake. They would have done better to take the high road.

 

[Leopoldine]

I don't think HM and her court want Mr. Markle, a retired infirm kind of person, already on the back foot, vilified. There is nothing to be gained by Meghan scoring a "win" against her father. I think this is going to be shut down …. unless HM's team let it play out to dismal conclusions, and Harry goes home.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I am a bit confused. I see in the news that Meghan has accused the media of manipulating, harassing, humiliating and exploiting her father. if her father testifies that in no way does he feel that he was treated so - doesn't the whole case fall apart. Unless they can prove that he is incapable of his own judgement how can they claim this?

Yes this is part of the defendance strategy:

Antony White QC, for Associated Newspapers, today told judge Mr Justice Warby it is 'curious' that the Mail on Sunday is accused of 'harassing, humiliating, manipulating and exploiting' Mr Markle when his daughter hasn't spoken to him for at least two years.

He said claims made by Meghan about her father 'appear to have been put on to the record without the claimant (Ms Markle) having contacted her father to see if he agrees with them'.

 

[evolvingdoors]

@Claire - I agree. Meghan's lawyers would have to prove DM blackmailed Dad to do the hit pieces on her or he is not of sound mind to the point that a person without medical training would know it. But there is a danger there. MoS wants the malicious intent argument thrown out. If it stays her dad is going to be looked at real hard and his role in this, as if he was a willing co-conspirator. If the judge finds the paper is at fault and acted with malice he can see that equally applies to Tom.

To me, it seems the real danger of saying Thomas is weak, and not of sound mind therefore he was ripe to be taken advantage of by the DM and outlets, and with Meghan cutting ties with him.. it actually shows her in a very bad light.

People will, and are, asking: well, if you thought your dad was being exploited, why didn’t you go to him and protected him against the big bad media?
Even if he declined, you physically go and make sure he is safe.
This alone can put doubt in the mind of many about her lawsuit. This alone can destroy her and Harry reputation alone, even if they end winning.

She seems to be trying to portray her dad as both one of the perpetrators and a victim at the same time.. that is not possible. Not in a lawsuit. I would think.

 

[Denville]

To me, it seems the real danger of saying Thomas is weak, and not of sound mind therefore he was ripe to be taken advantage of by the DM and outlets, and with Meghan cutting ties with him.. it actually shows her in a very bad light.

People will, and are, asking: well, if you thought your dad was being exploited, why didn’t you go to him and protected him against the big bad media?
Even if he declined, you physically go and make sure he is safe.
This alone can put doubt in the mind of many about her lawsuit. This alone can destroy her and Harry reputation alone, even if they end winning.

She seems to be trying to portray her dad as both one of the perpetrators and a victim at the same time.. that is not possible. Not in a lawsuit. I would think.

Thos M is not an angel. I think he's [...], difficult with people at the best of times and he has exploited his connexion with Meghan. having said that, he seems to have been a decent father to her when she was a child, and done his best for her.

 

[King of the Jungle]

No one is perfect, not even the best of fathers.
I don't think anything good will come of the law suit. What is there to win?

 

[Queen Claude]

The core of the lawsuit is that the Mail on Sunday violated copyright law when the published Meghan's letter to her father. The thing that has nagged at me is that the pursuit of the letter was triggered by the People Magazine article due to one or more of Meghan's friends revealing the existence of the letter.

When I read the People Magazine article (link), my immediate, immediate reaction was that Meghan wanted the letter to be made public and I was not surprised at all that within a matter of days portions of the letter were published. Although it should be noted that this week Meghan's legal team denied that Meghan knew about her friends being interviewed by People and that Meghan's letter to her father would be referenced.

What perplexes me in all this is that I think that Thomas Markle may have been exploited by the media and Meghan (and Harry) have legitimate gripes against the media in terms of their excesses when it comes to their reporting about the couple, however I don't see the publication of Meghan's letter to her father as representative of either situation. Yes the copyright case is valid in and of itself, but it seems like things are getting muddied up because of how the existence of the letter became known and also that the Sussexes' motive (IMO) is to use the copyright violation to hit back at the media for its overall treatment of them and Meghan in particular. That was evident because the announcement of the lawsuit was part of an anti-media screed issued by the Sussexes. In addition to that, a key aspect of the Mail on Sunday's defense is that the existence of the letter came about and that characteristics of letter was described in a high-profile article about Meghan, initiated by Meghan and her friends. I want to be critical of the scope creep but it seems like both sides are participating in the scope creep as part of their respective strategies.

 

[evolvingdoors]

The core of the lawsuit is that the Mail on Sunday violated copyright law when the published Meghan's letter to her father. The thing that has nagged at me is that the pursuit of the letter was triggered by the People Magazine article due to one or more of Meghan's friends revealing the existence of the letter.

When I read the People Magazine article (link), my immediate, immediate reaction was that Meghan wanted the letter to be made public and I was not surprised at all that within a matter of days portions of the letter were published. Although it should be noted that this week Meghan's legal team denied that Meghan knew about her friends being interviewed by People and that Meghan's letter to her father would be referenced.

What perplexes me in all this is that I think that Thomas Markle may have been exploited by the media and Meghan (and Harry) have legitimate gripes against the media in terms of their excesses when it comes to their reporting about the couple, however I don't see the publication of Meghan's letter to her father as representative of either situation. Yes the copyright case is valid in and of itself, but it seems like things are getting muddied up because of how the existence of the letter became known and also that the Sussexes' motive (IMO) is to use the copyright violation to hit back at the media for its overall treatment of them and Meghan in particular. That was evident because the announcement of the lawsuit was part of an anti-media screed issued by the Sussexes. In addition to that, a key aspect of the Mail on Sunday's defense is that the existence of the letter came about and that characteristics of letter was described in a high-profile article about Meghan, initiated by Meghan and her friends. I want to be critical of the scope creep but it seems like both sides are participating in the scope creep as part of their respective strategies.

Let’s say Meghan is telling the truth that she didn’t approve her friends to speak to the media and about the letter.
I can imagine the defense can argue that by giving even just one of those friends access to the letter she essentially gave that friend a non verbal approval to what is a private matter. Giving the friend the confidence to talk about her and the letter publicly.

Hack, for all we know she may be kind of right in her claim about People magazine: maybe she didn’t outright ask or approved to her friend/s to talk to people magazine about her and the letter, she may have provided her approval without saying a flat out yes.. you get what I mean?

I think the term is “Probable deniability“? Or something to that affect.

The exact question her friend/s asked, or how they potentially presented the interview and eventually what and how she answered, may end up being very crucial.

If she did not flat out told them to not speak about her to the press- ever, if she gave them even the tiniest of leeway, the defense can arguably use that to claim she provided approval, even if she didn’t know about that specific People article but gave one in general.


I mean, i’m thinking logically: you know you have publicity issues with your dad.
You know he is viewed badly and is probably being taken advantage of.
You decide to write a very private letter to him.
Why would you share the content of said letter with your friend?

Personally if I was writing such a letter I would not share the content with my friends. No matter how much I feel I can trust them.


And outside of the lawsuit: honestly if I were Harry I would not feel comfortable being around that person/people ever again, and I would question my partner if they continued the friendship- especially after he/she cut ties with her own father for also speaking to the press (no matter how messy he may by)... because obviously they can and will blab when convenient, what will stop them from not speaking and revealing more private info in the future?

Just thinking out loud..

 

[yukari]

I think one important lesson that the Sussexes can learn from this debacle is that they need to be careful when picking someone into their "circle of trust".

Other than friends, with their war declaration to British media, they'll also need to be more careful with the "grassroot media" they choose to engage. Honestly, I'm rather wary about Omid Scobie. Who know if in few years he'll do what Andrew Morton did to Diana. A book telling about the Sussexes from "closer perspective" surely would sell, right?

Just my humble opinion ?

 

[Kataryn]

@Claire - I agree. Meghan's lawyers would have to prove DM blackmailed Dad to do the hit pieces on her or he is not of sound mind to the point that a person without medical training would know it. But there is a danger there. MoS wants the malicious intent argument thrown out. If it stays her dad is going to be looked at real hard and his role in this, as if he was a willing co-conspirator. If the judge finds the paper is at fault and acted with malice he can see that equally applies to Tom.

From an article in today's Guardian:


David Sherborne, for the duchess, said it was a “complete fallacy” to dismiss claims that the newspaper had harassed and manipulated her father because she had not been in contact with him. Markle had “made it plain” to his daughter in a letter complaining about his treatment by a journalist. It was also evident in highly damaging and distressing stories the publisher had run about Markle, including exposing him as a “royal wedding scammer” for having agreed to pose for fake photographs of his wedding preparations, the judge heard.

From this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sten-in-as-case-against-mail-on-sunday-starts


Maybe it can work this way if she can show how the tabloids not only groomed Thomas Markle as interview partner against his daughter, but harrassed him as well on writing negative things about him.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

This latest beggars belief. Five friends, trusted with something so intimate as the details of a personal letter between a father and daughter, take it upon themselves as a collective to give a sit-down, cover-story interview to a magazine, revealing those personal details? And not only was the subject of the interview not consulted, but not one of these five (nor a sixth friend, the magazine editor), alluded to the plan, mentioned it in passing, or made any other reference whatever to it until the edition hit the shelves, at which point the subject of the interview was utterly blindsided by it? Not one person said, "Wait, we should ask the subject of this intimately personal topic, our close friend, if this is how she wants to be defended?" They respect and love her so much that they thought it was their personal and collective prerogative to share her intimate details with the world with no permission whatsoever, without her consent? Yet she remains on such positive terms with at least one of these friends that the woman was invited to stay with her and Harry during the formative and essential period in Canada before the step down from senior duties was announced?

There is absolutely no chance that five of Meghan's closest confidantes took this step without having good- absolutely ironclad- reason to believe that she wanted the information shared in this way. If they took the extra step of ensuring that she did not not know exactly when or how it would be shared, it shows that they all knew she would eventually be called to task on sharing information through her friends.

 

[Ista]

Several posts that rehashed the relationship between the Duchess of Sussex and her father, and included speculation about motives, actions, and intentions that do not directly relate to the ongoing legal action against the press have been deleted. Further off-topic posts will also be deleted.

This thread is for the legal action against the press initiated by the Sussexes. Discussion of Thomas Markle should be limited to issues that directly pertain to that, and should not be a rehash of speculation or rumors that have been endlessly discussed in the past.

 

[Madame Verseau]

@HighGoalsHighDreams - for MoS to argue Meghan gave the go ahead for her friends to talk to People its lawyers would have to produce texts or emails between them stating that purpose. Or get them on the stand and hope they slip up during questioning.

 

[Claire]

Is this a case where perjury can carry a fine or sentence? Not saying anything just asking?

 

[Sandy345]

What if there is no proof either way?

 

[Queen Claude]

@HighGoalsHighDreams - for MoS to argue Meghan gave the go ahead for her friends to talk to People its lawyers would have to produce texts or emails between them stating that purpose. Or get them on the stand and hope they slip up during questioning.

I don't know if they have to have rock solid proof, it depends on how high the burden of proof is. It may be good enough to show patterns of behavior on Meghan's part, especially how Meghan reacted when people who knew her spoke to the media, or preemptive steps taken that demonstrate that Meghan did not want her friends talking to the media. An additional aspect is People Magazine itself and how it operates. Would People Magazine, which I've always heard does not rock the boat with the people they cover, put the resources and effort in this kind of story without some form of assurance that the person being covered did not object to the article(s)?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

@HighGoalsHighDreams - for MoS to argue Meghan gave the go ahead for her friends to talk to People its lawyers would have to produce texts or emails between them stating that purpose. Or get them on the stand and hope they slip up during questioning.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting this line of thinking would be argued in court-- just that it beggars belief that such a thing would have taken place.

 

[Eskimo]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting this line of thinking would be argued in court-- just that it beggars belief that such a thing would have taken place.

I wonder how many of these friends would like to be questioned under oath?

 

[Zonk]

Do we even think it will go that far?

Has the key fact changed? The MoS published the letter without Meghan's consent. Does it matter if she hasn't seen or spoken to her father? Does it matter that he released the letter to counter the People interview. According to British law, copyright belongs to Meghan? Did they receive her consent? No, okay...case closed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is there any other monarchy with a press as disgusting as in the UK? Remember: this is about a freshly new addition to the royal family:

"On the other nine articles, on which she [the Duchess] is claiming aggravated damages, Sherborne [the Duchess' lawyer] said it was all about the distress she felt at the realisation the defendant had an agenda of “intrusive and offensive” stories about her.

The articles included: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: gang-scarred home of her mother revealed”; “Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John’”; and “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

 

[KellyAtLast]

Is there any other monarchy with a press as disgusting as in the UK? Remember: this is about a freshly new addition to the royal family:

"On the other nine articles, on which she [the Duchess] is claiming aggravated damages, Sherborne [the Duchess' lawyer] said it was all about the distress she felt at the realisation the defendant had an agenda of “intrusive and offensive” stories about her.

The articles included: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: gang-scarred home of her mother revealed”; “Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John’”; and “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

Well when Kobe Bryant died TMZ reported it before authorities could notify his next of kin. His poor wife had to find out from the media..everyone else knew before she did.
Then there is Queen Letizia of Spain. She's not very much liked by the spaniards and gets awful things written about her in the Spanish press.
Over in Sweden every few months tabloids would publish front page stories about Chris O'neill and Madeline. Like he's drunk and they are headed for divorce or his company is going bankrupt or he married her for royal connections. He's cheating on her, Madeline is unhappy, Chris gave madeline ultimatum, Chris made madeline move away from Sweden, he's evil bad influence..etc etc..No one from the swedish court or the swedish royal family comes out to defend chris and madeline whenever they get attacked by the press. But chris and madde probably don't read it anyway.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is there any other monarchy with a press as disgusting as in the UK? Remember: this is about a freshly new addition to the royal family:

"On the other nine articles, on which she [the Duchess] is claiming aggravated damages, Sherborne [the Duchess' lawyer] said it was all about the distress she felt at the realisation the defendant had an agenda of “intrusive and offensive” stories about her.

The articles included: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: gang-scarred home of her mother revealed”; “Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John’”; and “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

You’re rehashing media vs Meghan and we, quite rightly, have been told time and time again not to do that.

The relationship between the British Monarchy and the press has nothing to do with the press itself, and all to do with communication or lack thereof by the two parties.

 

[MARG]

Correct me if I am wrong but this thread was created to cover Meghan's court case about the M o S having an agenda (as detailed by Duc) and that they manipulated her father to the degree that he gave them a copy of a letter the media had insisted didn't exist and they editorialized to injure Meghan by publishing only parts of the letter. Meghan has a copy of the original and takes issue with the MoS statement that they had published the entire letter.

What part of the above Duc's post does not pertain to the very basis of the suit itself?