Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media - Page 40

DuchessMia · #**781** 01-14-2020, 06:23 PM

Thomas communicated with someone he assumed was Harry about his heart attack and he handed that text over to the court. And...so? Not sure I understand the value of that text to the defense. Thomas initially lied about Harry & Meghan even contacting him. The DM and Sun wrote fiction about Meghan being a heartless daughter. Who cares if someone called him out, accusing him of hurting Meghan. He did and continues to.

Jacknch · #**782** 01-14-2020, 06:26 PM

Article from BBC News:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51109538

Quote:

The Mail on Sunday has argued there is a "huge and legitimate public interest" in the Royal Family and its "personal and family relationships", as it published its defence to a legal claim made by the Duchess of Sussex.

ACO · #**783** 01-14-2020, 06:41 PM

I am not surprised they are using public interest as their defense. It was the initial one but in the middle of this media storm with Meghan they seem to think it will be better. Not sure their actually claim of "she wrote it with the intention of a 3rd party to read it" hold much water but I can see their attempt. It will be interesting to see play out for sure.

**soapstar** · #**784** 01-14-2020, 06:55 PM

I have no idea how this all plays out, or if the DM’s defense will hold up, but I do know that this is all just a mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

So yes this will be very interesting to watch play out. But the most telling thing is that he is giving all these letters and texts to a tabloid who loves to attack his daughter. Then he has the nerve to say he doesn't understand why she does not talk to him.

Really?

Do you mean these latest letters/text messages, or the ones from months ago? Cause the latest ones weren’t given to the tabloids. They were taken from the court documents.

**Ista** · #**785** 01-14-2020, 06:58 PM

I'm not surprised that they are defending themselves, but it's going to be fascinating to see if the courts buy their arguments. It sounds like their defense is based on a whole lot of supposition to me, but I'm assuming they are planning to back up those arguments. I think the weak point for Meghan is and has always been that her friends clearly had the details of the letter and permission to speak about them which does rather back up the MoS's point about the letter having been written with the idea that others would read it. Very curious to see how it all plays out.

Osipi · #**786** 01-14-2020, 07:07 PM

Having there be a "huge public interest" in the royal family and their lives is a truth that I can agree with. People *are* interested or none of us would be here in the first place.

There is a difference between reporting and informing and setting out to maim and denigrate a person's character using the printed/online media to infringe on the personal privacy of another human being and Thomas Markle was the perfect patsy.

No matter what defense the Mail On Sunday come up with with Thomas Markle or no Thomas Markle, their publication records show the aim to paint Meghan in a negative light. Besides, the main meat and potatoes of this case is the copyright infringement of publishing her private letter and a doctored version to boot.

**Ista** · #**787** 01-14-2020, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Having there be a "huge public interest" in the royal family and their lives is a truth that I can agree with. People *are* interested or none of us would be here in the first place.

Yes, I always thought that the "huge public interest" thing was a pretty weak argument. By those standards, no one in the public eye, including the Queen, would be safe from this kind of intrusion.

**Zonk** · #**788** 01-14-2020, 07:54 PM

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.

Madame Verseau · #**789** 01-14-2020, 07:59 PM

I knew Meghan's dad was going to get dragged into this lawsuit and DM was going to do the dragging. The public interest argument is weak IMO and claiming the style of Meghan's handwriting proves it was meant for public consumption is stupid. If that were the case Meghan would have turned over a copy of the letter to People or put it on Facebook. Secondly Samantha is running around giving interviews now claiming Dad was never invited to the wedding but these texts show otherwise. Thirdly the court papers Dad went in for a procedure for a specific date. I don't see the name of the facility where he had it done or the name of the doctor who did it. Finally by handing over documents and texts to DM, voluntarily and not by subpoena or court order, Markle looks like he has been colluding with DM from the git go.

At the end of the day Markle lied about no contact from Meghan after the wedding. And I agree that Dad is being used as a human shield to force her to drop the lawsuit and setting him up as the fall guy if the suit goes forward and it goes against DM. Remember Meghan never named him the suit or she would have gone for it. World media will tune in; and in my opinion more thorough vetting will be done on her father. More damning information could surface and that would be the last thing Meghan would want. But...I think she and her lawyers planned for such a contingency and is ready to go to the mattresses.

Eskimo · #**790** 01-14-2020, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ista

Yes, I always thought that the "huge public interest" thing was a pretty weak argument. By those standards, no one in the public eye, including the Queen, would be safe from this kind of intrusion.

That is exactly what we have seen over the last 25+ years going back to the Charles/Diana divorce. There is no "privacy" that the tabloid media consider scared for public figures.

The fact that the DM have chosen to fight this is significant. Usually, there is an out of court settlement and apology in these case. We have to wait and see if they are fighting this because they believe they are truly in the right or they are just trying to add to their clicks/newspaper sales.

ACO · #**791** 01-14-2020, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soapstar

I have no idea how this all plays out, or if the DM’s defense will hold up, but I do know that this is all just a mess.

Do you mean these latest letters/text messages, or the ones from months ago? Cause the latest ones weren’t given to the tabloids. They were taken from the court documents.

Reading the various article it seems like the Mail on Sunday has these texts and his medical records directly from him. The current stories are from the court documents, yes. But he gave them to the tabloid in question being sued.

I just don't get what he is doing. They are even kind of mocking him. Their defense says they knew his ego would get the best of him and he would hand over the letter. This man would literally throw his own child under the bus if it means he could have his moment. And that is exactly what he is doing.

He can't keep one story straight. I almost hope he gets on a stand because it would NOT be a great time for him. That much is beyond clear. Anyways this relationship is dead and buried. No coming back from this one.

Madame Verseau · #**792** 01-14-2020, 09:50 PM

@ACO - Markle would not survive cross examination by Meghan's lawyers. I don't get DM lawyers bringing back the heart attack. That opens a Pandora's box of a various lines of questioning where his credibility is challenged. Past statements and interviews can be examined and Meghan's lawyers may have receipts.

**Zonk** · #**793** 01-14-2020, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

@ACO - Markle would not survive cross examination by Meghan's lawyers. I don't get DM lawyers bringing back the heart attack. That opens a Pandora's box of a various lines of questioning where his credibility is challenged. Past statements and interviews can be examined and Meghan's lawyers may have receipts.

I imagine they would try to get information regarding his heart attack...like...date of admittance...procedure performed, etc. He produced some documents before regarding his procedure...and if I recall...it did not appear that he had a heart attack. Of course, its not going to outright say...treated for a heart attack.

If he didn't have an actual heart attack, and yes that is a direct attack on his credibility. I mean, his story has already changed several times.

ACO · #**794** 01-14-2020, 10:14 PM

I remember when he was in constant contact with TMZ shortly after he was exposed. He was using them as his spokespeople. He had claimed a heart attack and then was seen driving to Doria's house. Then he had them announce he was getting checked out. Then he was home. Then he was back in suddenly getting surgery. It was all over the place.

And we know TMZ has all that recorded. That said.... this is irrelevant to her case of copyright. They want to use Thomas to paint a weird that has nothing to do with them publishing her letter.

Eskimo · #**795** 01-14-2020, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

@ACO - Markle would not survive cross examination by Meghan's lawyers. I don't get DM lawyers bringing back the heart attack. That opens a Pandora's box of a various lines of questioning where his credibility is challenged. Past statements and interviews can be examined and Meghan's lawyers may have receipts.

I do not think it will go that far...While Meghan's lawyers may successfuly bring his credibility in doubt, let's not forget that Meghan will herself have to testify and be cross-examined. I think they will try to quietly drop the suit because win or lose, they will lose the PR game

**soapstar** · #**796** 01-14-2020, 10:18 PM

Well he turned over documents to lawyers, so I imagine they've checked and verified that his heart attack is real. I mean, I know people don’t trust him, but I don’t think lawyers would call him as a witness without checking out his story.

ACO · #**797** 01-14-2020, 10:35 PM

I don't doubt he was in the hospital or had a heart attack. I do question his timeline though. All that said it still means very little to the actual case. He will show up and testify to what exactly? That is gave them the letter? We know that.

Madame Verseau · #**798** 01-14-2020, 10:40 PM

DM claimed it had the complete letter and Markle said he sent over parts to DM. If Markle is on the stand how is he going to square that? That's the jist of the case. When Meghan's lawyers file documents they show the actual documents. Where are the DM documents?

Question: what if the court finds DM violated copyright and Markle was a willing Co-conspirator to the smear campaign, not a patsy? Is there legal exposure to hin?

Osipi · #**799** 01-14-2020, 10:58 PM

Personally, I think *anything* that involves Thomas Markle, Sr. is having a wild card that can be used to amplify anything at any given time and also change at the drop of a hat or as the wind blows. I'd most likely really question Mr. Markle's credibility if I was a lawyer opposing him in court.

If I remember right, Mr. Markle had problems and checked into a hospital and was given advice for treatment which he, at the time, refused against medical advice. This led to actual problems happening and the procedures done to install stents. It all was followed so closely by TMZ and then the tabloids because the man was a gold mine for click bait articles and most saw him as a laughingstock back then and that's not going to change anytime soon.

A good word for the man probably would be "patsy" or "the fall guy" or even "cash cow". No matter what Mr. Markle's true intents were, I do think he was used.

VictoriaB · #**800** 01-14-2020, 11:03 PM

I think the point of the defence is that Meghan gave her friends permission to speak with People magazine about, among other things, her relationship with her father. Those friends, in that article, said she had sent him a loving letter aimed at repairing their relationship and made other comments about what he did/their relationship in the run up to the wedding. The defence says the letter was not loving or aimed at repairing the relationship and Thomas had a right to use it to show that.

The texts between Meghan and Thomas (which are all from the lead up to the wedding) are supposed to show that the People article was not accurate.

So the defence of the paper/Thomas seems to be that through her friends and People mag, Meghan lied about her relationship with her father, we (Mail & Thomas) were justified in publishing the letter to show that she lied and we are now presenting these text messages to show that she/her friends lied about what happened in the run up to the wedding. We are also going to show that Meghan knew how to manipulate the media because she had Jessica Mulroney contact a former adviser who had given an interview to us (DM) to put pressure on the adviser to change her story.

I'm not saying any of this is true but that seems to be what the DM is claiming in its defence.

Unsurprisingly, the Mail Online has a host of articles about this.