Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Kataryn]

Since the courts do not have a time machine to go back time and read Meghan's thoughts when she wrote the letter, they will have to rely on things like this to determine what her intent was.

Given Omid's pro-Meghan stance and the fact that he has written a book about the Sussex pair on which they willingly collaborated, this is potentially very damaging for the case.

It's just hearsay. Nothing else. And even if, she could be rest assured that either the tabloids would behave lawfully or that she will get damages now.

 

[evolvingdoors]

It pains me deeply to post anything from the sun, but a quick search did not bring me up another source, i’m sure another website will catch up.

It looks like new documents from the lawsuit against the MOS were released yesterday -4th June (i do find it interesting it happened the same day as the George Floyd video being dropped- but i’m sure it is just a coincidence)


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknew...le-drops-claims-dad-thomas-manipulated-press/

MEG AMENDS Meghan Markle forced to drop claims her dad Thomas, 75, was ‘manipulated’ by the press
Matt WilkinsonTom Wells
5 Jun 2020, 16:21Updated: 5 Jun 2020, 16:22
MEGHAN Markle has cut arguments from her privacy case against the press after being forced into a climbdown by a High Court ruling.

Documents released yesterday reveal her case will no longer allege her father was "manipulated" by the press.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, that doesn't surprise me at all. It would have been very hard, if not impossible, to prove manipulation.

As far as the coincidence between the back off of the manipulation angle against Mr. Markle and what is going on with the murder of George Floyd, there *is* a similarity in a way. As hard as it is to prove manipulation, its also the same with trying to prove that Mr. Chauvin premeditated the murder and hence no first degree murder charges.

When it comes to legal cases, you want to go into court on points that you can actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the defended states outright that "I used Mr X" or "I planned to do this", intent is a very iffy thing to prove.

 

[Somebody]

It was the court who ordered her to take it out; so, it seems that she just did as she was told by the high court. At least, I assume that also the other parts that he ordered to be removed have been removed.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Meghan practically had to prove Dad was blackmailed by the press to do the interviews. I think Markle as victim of the media was a tough sell, especially with Dad going on TV saying he wants to be paid for interviews.

 

[QueenMathilde]

So the trial is over?

 

[ACO]

So the trial is over?

No. It hasn't even started.

 

[evolvingdoors]

It was the court who ordered her to take it out; so, it seems that she just did as she was told by the high court. At least, I assume that also the other parts that he ordered to be removed have been removed.

I’m well aware of that.
That’s not my point.
Maybe this was the wrong thread given the coincidence of what else was released that day by her, perhaps the general thread would be the correct thread.

 

[Pranter]

Seeing rumblings today of more possible legal action being taken by Harry. Lots of discussion on Twitter. It involves Dan Wooten (.......)


LaRae

 

[evolvingdoors]

Seeing rumblings today of more possible legal action being taken by Harry. Lots of discussion on Twitter. It involves Dan Wooten (.....)


LaRae

i saw a Byline Investigates post, I don’t really read that website, it is highly problematic imo to say the least.

If Harry is thinking of filing another lawsuit he really is an idiot- and it makes my fear that he is being egged on by someone to file all these lawsuits- I can not imagine he has that much money to sustain all of them, so who is paying the lawyer fees?.
Another very important note, suing everyone and their mother because you suspect they talked is not the answer (seriously royal aides have always talked and talked for money, nothing new about that!) if you want a quiet life- stop suing and just go! Because otherwise it makes you look super messy and problematic to the super elite rich people you want to attract, and they will eventually distance themselves if you become too messy.



Lastly, will he sue also Meghan five friends and other friends too who spoke to the press and leaked information?

 

[Pranter]

The billionaire-owned newspaper company and its Executive Editor #DanWootton have both said they will sue us if we report the allegations, which are detailed in a formal ‘Letter Before Action’ issued by lawyers acting for the Duke of Sussex.


So based on that Harry's attys have sent letter(s).


I've never heard of Byline so I wasn't sure if they were connected to a tabloid or were an independent organization.



LaRae

 

[Queen Claude]

Seeing rumblings today of more possible legal action being taken by Harry. Lots of discussion on Twitter. It involves Dan Wooten (......)

LaRae

Dan Wootton's partner does not work for KP. The allegation is that the partner of a KP staffer was paid by The Sun/Dan Wootton in relation to stories published in June and July 2019.

...
I've never heard of Byline so I wasn't sure if they were connected to a tabloid or were an independent organization.

LaRae

From BYLINE Investigates's youtube channel (link)

Who Guards The Guardians? Byline Investigates is a team of journalists crowd-funded to cover the stories on criminal activity within the British media, that for some reason the British media won't.

 

[Pranter]

Dan Wootton's partner does not work for KP. The allegation is that the partner of a KP staffer was paid by The Sun/Dan Wootton in relation to stories published in June and July 2019.


From BYLINE Investigates's youtube channel (link)

Pretty sure it came out months ago Wooten's partner works for KP.


LaRae

 

[Fem]

Pretty sure it came out months ago Wooten's partner works for KP.


LaRae

Could you provide a source of this information?

 

[Pranter]

It was talked about here months ago...it was discussed at length on social media outside here as well. You can probably google articles about it.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

If that were the case surely his partner would be suspected of being his source for stories?

 

[Fem]

It was talked about here months ago...it was discussed at length on social media outside here as well. You can probably google articles about it.


LaRae

I already did. And, to no one's surprise, I didn't find absolutely anything that I could call a credible source. It all comes down to a single tweet by a user FredsMother: "Dan Wootton is the boyfriend of Prince William's Press Secretary. Wootton is the go-to and mouth piece for Kensington Palace.(...)" (link:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1228981542472626177

). That's why I asked if you have any source of this information, because: a) nothing points at it being true; b) there's no other source than this tweet that you can see above.

The only other time Dan Wootton is mentioned as someone close to KP's staff is an "article" in Byline (can be read here: https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/...ms-at-the-sun-the-story-murdoch-tried-to-bury) that states, and I quote: "It follows months of public speculation about the close connection between Mr Wootton and the Sussexes’ former Communications Secretary Christian Jones, who continues to be employed in the role by Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and whose partner is freelance publicist Callum Stephens, who is also a friend to Wootton." But that's not even about Dan Wootton's partner, just his friends, who are apparently a couple.

So forgive me for asking for a source but it seems like a completely natural thing when someone makes an accusation like that and does not give a source.

 

[Pranter]

I just remember the discussion here and elsewhere. It's been several months ago so any links etc would be in whatever thread here etc.

LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

You’d think if Dan was romantically linked to dating Christian Jones, we’d know about it too. But not a peep on any google search, not even a TRF discussion that I could find.

 

[Pranter]

You’d think if Dan was romantically linked to dating Christian Jones, we’d know about it too. But not a peep on any google search, not even a TRF discussion that I could find.

Most likely it's a deleted thread or post series. I just remember it being talked about here.



LaRae

 

[Fem]

I just remember the discussion here and elsewhere. It's been several months ago so any links etc would be in whatever thread here etc.

LaRae

The TRF search for "Dan Wootton" does not find any kind of discussion about his alleged partner, working for KP. I also dived deeper into Google, not even one article on the subject in question, so if you'd be so kind and provide a source for that information, I'd be grateful.

You’d think if Dan was romantically linked to dating Christian Jones, we’d know about it too. But not a peep on any google search, not even a TRF discussion that I could find.

I also found this, from usatoday/LaineyGossip: "(...)stemming from the friendship between Duchess Kate of Cambridge's press spokesman, Christian Jones, and Dan Wootton, a reporter for The Sun, the largest-selling tabloid in Britain." (of course also link to the article: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/enter...xit-plan-theories-abound-what-led/4433399002/), but a big, fat nothing on any kind of romantic relationship.

I think it's worth to add too, that Dan Wootton denied this is true and Jones is his source in a tweet: "The theories here about how I got the Megxit story and who may have leaked it to me are totally untrue and highly irresponsible.(...)"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1216072178308984832

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't know anything about who is partner with who but is it not likely that the whole circle of press secs, comms people, journalists are all friends or at least know each other from previous lives/ careers. They are quite often former journalists. Also would anybody make it that obvious that they were the leak. Just IMO obviously.

 

[poppy7]

I don't know anything about who is partner with who but is it not likely that the whole circle of press secs, comms people, journalists are all friends or at least know each other from previous lives/ careers. They are quite often former journalists. Also would anybody make it that obvious that they were the leak. Just IMO obviously.

Quite. It is an incestuous circle. Kinda like politicians, journalists and their advisors. However, I would find it unlikely that the Cambridges would hire a partner of a well know tabloid royal hack. Just not their style.

 

[Ista]

Several posts that were either off topic or which involved bickering between members have been removed. Going forward, please stay on topic, and avoid getting drawn into repetitive back and forth squabbling.

In addition, when making a statement, please cite the source for the information as set out in the forum rules:

---Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.---

Any further off topic, bickering, or speculative posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[evolvingdoors]

[...]

They’re suing Splash again.
This time for the Meghan and Archie Canada pics.

https://extra.ie/2020/06/24/enterta...ue-photo-agency/amp?__twitter_impression=true

ETA: I was gonna leave it at this but I realized why I am so upset about this lawsuit, the fact they have dragged their infant son into their lawsuits trigger happy life. Despicable!

 

[Denville]

[...]

They’re suing Splash again.
This time for the Meghan and Archie Canada pics.

https://extra.ie/2020/06/24/enterta...ue-photo-agency/amp?__twitter_impression=true

ETA: I was gonna leave it at this but I realized why I am so upset about this lawsuit, the fact they have dragged their infant son into their lawsuits trigger happy life. Despicable!

What is wrong with that? Their child is entitled to privacy more than they are...as tehy are public figures. I dont think that they handle these issues very well but still, if they want to sue on behalf of their child, i think they can do so.

 

[evolvingdoors]

What is wrong with that? Their child is entitled to privacy more than they are...as tehy are public figures. I dont think that they handle these issues very well but still, if they want to sue on behalf of their child, i think they can do so.

He has privacy, he will have even more if his parents will cease to use him for PR purposes.
In the year since he has been born the majority of times we have seen this kid was by pictures and videos his own parents published.
No one forced them to do a video with him for his birthday!

You do not scream you want your kid to have privacy but than use him for publicity sake.
This lawsuit is no exception.
Any celebrity will tell you the only way to disappear from public radar is to totally disappear from public radar, drop off completely. You don’t tweet, you don’t leak information to your mouthpieces and use PR companies, you don’t do PR videos at all.
And most of all: you don’t file so many lawsuits!

Can they sue on behalf of the child? Sure.
Should they in this case? No.

This lawsuit is foolish, most of all because there is no evidence any privacy was breached.

And if Meghan felt so compelled to sue, she could have done so solo without adding her one year old innocent child name to the lawsuit.
This is what seeking attention looks like.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I question this situation because

A; if these papers were lodged in a U.K. court nearly 3 months ago why are we just hearing of it now? Not a single British paper has reported on this.

B; Isn’t Meghan’s title wrong in “court documents”?

C; How can they sue in an English court when at the time they weren’t here and they’re also not here now?

 

[Denville]

He has privacy, he will have even more if his parents will cease to use him for PR purposes.
In the year since he has been born the majority of times we have seen this kid was by pictures and videos his own parents published.
No one forced them to do a video with him for his birthday!

You do not scream you want your kid to have privacy but than use him for publicity sake.
This lawsuit is no exception.
Any celebrity will tell you the only way to disappear from public radar is to totally disappear from public radar, drop off completely. You don’t tweet, you don’t leak information to your mouthpieces and use PR companies, you don’t do PR videos at all.
And most of all: you don’t file so many lawsuits!

Can they sue on behalf of the child? Sure.
Should they in this case? No.

This lawsuit is foolish, most of all because there is no evidence any privacy was breached.

And if Meghan felt so compelled to sue, she could have done so solo without adding her one year old innocent child name to the lawsuit.
This is what seeking attention looks like.

IIRC there were pictures of Archie with her, out walking, soon after they moved to Canada...I agree that they haven't given a clear message.
. I've often said that they claim Archie is a private person and yet they put out pics on Social media, they did that video on his birthday which I coudl not see the point of.
I agree that they keep giving mixed messages, but all the same, Archie IS a baby and should not be photographed except by his parents consent. Its possible that they have to put the suit in his name.. I dont know abot the law but that is a possibility...

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

IIRC there were pictures of Archie with her, out walking, soon after they moved to Canada...I agree that they haven't given a clear message.
. I've often said that they claim Archie is a private person and yet they put out pics on Social media, they did that video on his birthday which I coudl not see the point of.
I agree that they keep giving mixed messages, but all the same, Archie IS a baby and should not be photographed except by his parents consent. Its possible that they have to put the suit in his name.. I dont know abot the law but that is a possibility...

If the Sussexes share your sentiment, they are going to be deeply disappointed by this aspect of their move to the United States. (I realize this particular alleged dispute is about pictures taken in Canada.) One major trade-off they have made with their move is that Archie is far less protected in terms of media exposure. They will find that pictures of him taken in public in the US are fair game in our media. They will face a simple, if not an easy, choice: hide him away as he grows up, or accept that he will be photographed and those pictures will be published freely here.