Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

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]

Originally Posted by 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.”

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]

Originally Posted by 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.”

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?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by KellyAtLast

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.

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

mI mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

But in this instance they’re reporting the truth. There were links between the mosque and the recruitment of “soldiers” to ISIS. A similar story was ran about Prince Charles opening the Finsbury Park Mosque which had Abu Hamza as it’s Imam for 16 years.

This comparison will undoubtedly be deleted.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

But in this instance they’re reporting the truth. There were links between the mosque and the recruitment of “soldiers” to ISIS. A similar story was ran about Prince Charles opening the Finsbury Park Mosque which had Abu Hamza as it’s Imam for 16 years.

This comparison will undoubtedly be deleted.

It is the same as if Dutch press would nail Queen Máxima for wearing a hat an atelier which possibly employs a seamstress of Syrian descent, of whom a friend to her brother has joined Isis. It is too far sought and too ridiculous for words.

Like that avocado story. It would be similar to slamming Camilla for eating broccoli probably harvested by illegals whom crossed the Channel. It is purely searching, and searching, and searching for the most unlikely reason to crucify a person once more. That pattern has become convincingly clear in this case.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by 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.

The reason (IMO) for the scope creep away from the "key fact" is first that the lawsuit itself claims that the publication of the letter is "part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband." As you may recall the announcement of the lawsuit was part of a lengthy statement issued by Harry on October 1, 2019 (link). In other filings Meghan's attorneys claimed that the MoS omitted certain parts of the letter and those omissions changed the meaning of the letter. They also introduced other articles published by other Associated Newspapers companies (owner of Mail on Sunday).


The second reason for the scope creep away from the "key fact" and the reasons why there is discussion about whether Meghan's friends will testify is because the MoS's defense is that they were triggered to go after the letter due to the letter being referenced in the People Magazine cover story. In response to this being part of the MoS defense, last week Meghan's attorney's stated that Meghan had no prior knowledge of the People interview, that the letter would be referenced in the interview and that the references to the contents of the letter were incorrect.


P.S.

Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex has filed a claim against Associated Newspapers over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
(...)
A legal spokesperson from Schillings who are representing The Duchess of Sussex said:

“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”.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

Never going to happen. If she wins this particular argument than the court would effectively be saying that media cannot publish anything that might cause the subject distress- that kind of press restriction only flies in places like North Korea.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Never going to happen. If she wins this particular argument than the court would effectively be saying that media cannot publish anything that might cause the subject distress- that kind of press restriction only flies in places like North Korea.

We are not talking about "distress" in personal meaning but "distress" in terms of unlawful infringement.

Meghan has the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on her honour or reputation. Like everyone, also Meghan has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Nothing to do with North Korea. Everything to do with a prudent and civil respect to human rights and freedoms.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

It was said in Court.

" [...]

The Mail on Sunday was dishonest because while cherry-picking extracts to suit its negative narrative of the duchess, “they knew perfectly well it was not the whole letter yet they suggested it was the whole letter”, the court heard.

On the other nine articles, on which she is claiming aggravated damages, Sherborne 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.”

[...] "

See link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-sunday-starts

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

The connection was that the women of Grenfell, a lot of muslimas under them, took up the offer of a mosque to establish their kitchen there. While they used the "common rooms" on this place of worship, otrher parts were allegedly used by radical islamists (which happens here in Germany as well) and the papers drew a "connection" that in fact wasn't there. As if you are responsible in a hotel for other guests' political activities....


If court let the tabloids get away in this case, it actively takes away Meghan's human rights of respect and decent treatment. For it is not the "facts" of these articles but what the papers made out of them. Saying she grew up in a place is one thing. Make it look as if she (actively) lived in a gang-held place should need at least some sort of truth apart from the fact that there was a closeness of places. It's about the quality and aim of articles that actively went against things she can't change when they did not find real proof of her personal involvement. That is something no judge should allow! And if they loose and see they need to dig more - let them! If there is something to dig out, I'm the first to accept such an article. You have to stand by what you do and did! But not such crap mix of lies and non-information mixed together to form a negative attitude towards her by the reader.
So my war cry is: let them work for their scandals!!

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It was said in Court.
“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.”

It wasn't said in court that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John. That statement came from an earlier post of yours Duc (see that post below).

You have quoted what was actually said in court, that there were links to the kitchen supported by Meghan. But nothing was ever mentioned about a favourite restaurant, which Hallo Girl is quite right to point out.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?