Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The thing is that no one has the right to determine what Harry talks about or doesn't talk about. Its called freedom of expression. When it comes to backing mental health issues, it makes sense to Harry to connect with the issue by talking about his own mental health. He's perfectly free to do so. It can also be determined that speaking out now about something that has laid buried all these years is part of his own healing.

When it comes to reasoning about what is expressed, the only person we can really cross examine is ourselves.

In all things, even this legal action, we're on the outside looking in and forming opinions. We opine on what seems to be for us. Makes for good discussions to see things from a variety of different angles.

No no one has the right but we also have the right to question why he is doing it? And whether it is mentally healthy to seemingly now build a life around it? He can do what he likes. The question more is if this is healthy for him.

I find it odd that people are saying he can talk about her all the time. But in reality if that was a person in our life. That would concern us and we would suggest they get help to move past it.

The death of a mother isn't a thing that ends for anyone. But its unhealthy to cling to it as a foundation story.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by poppy7

No no one has the right but we also have the right to question why he is doing it? And whether it is mentally healthy to seemingly now build a life around it? He can do what he likes. The question more is if this is healthy for him.

Of course we can ask "why?" until the cows come home. But unless we personally know Harry and actually are mental health accredited professionals, our "whys" are based on purely personal examination and if it is deemed "healthy" in our own minds. :)

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Of course we can ask "why?" until the cows come home. But unless we personally know Harry and actually are mental health accredited professionals, our "whys" are based on purely personal examination and if it is deemed "healthy" in our own minds. :)

So it isn't trying to take his autonomy away from him. Its question how healthy this action is? And it isn't very healthy at all.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by poppy7

So it isn't trying to take his autonomy away from him. Its question how healthy this action is? And it isn't very healthy at all.

The fact remains we don't have the right to determine what is healthy or not for someone we don't even know. We *think* we know him but the reality is that we don't. Not our place to judge what is healthy for him or not. Opinions on what *we* deem healthy or not healthy is valid as our own viewpoints though.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The fact remains we don't have the right to determine what is healthy or not for someone we don't even know. We *think* we know him but the reality is that we don't. Not our place to judge what is healthy for him or not. Opinions on what *we* deem healthy or not healthy is valid as our own viewpoints though.

Than allow me to provide tje perspective of someone who too lost a parent at a similar age to Harry, in fact a bit younger, what he is doing, is NOT the behavior of a mentally and emotionally stable person who has moved forward in life and over the untimely death of a parent.
I sympathize with him for his loss, but as I am myself familiar with this road, as I have traveled (and at times still do) it myself, I also painfully recognize the look of a vulnerable (almost childlike) troubled person who is in many forms and ways still stuck in the past and is in search of the mummy figure he lost and feels lost without.

Imo the lawsuits and the “move” to LA is for him nothing thinking he can run away from his demons. (Which is probably why he agreed to it) It will work, for awhile. You can run as far as you want, but when the demons come from within you can never hide (worse off when those you trust the most seem to be taking advantage of those demons for their own benefit- oh yea, been there too!)

Now i’ll cut off cause this has nothing to do with the lawsuits.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The fact remains we don't have the right to determine what is healthy or not for someone we don't even know. We *think* we know him but the reality is that we don't. Not our place to judge what is healthy for him or not. Opinions on what *we* deem healthy or not healthy is valid as our own viewpoints though.

With all due respect that is ridiculous. We all recognise healthy behaviour and what is the opposite.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by poppy7

With all due respect that is ridiculous. We all recognise healthy behaviour and what is the opposite.

I could be sitting here all day and watch someone that doesn't eat anything besides junk food and candy bars and deem its not healthy. It's what I see. I actually do know of people that have been advised by their doctors to stick to junk food and candy bars so following doctor's orders is healthy. For that person. But anyways... we're digressing from the lawsuit.

The further this is dragged out, the more it is actually confusing with all the snippets of this and focus on that and I end up seeing a kaleidoscope of fact, fiction and everything else under the sun keeping interest in this legal action very visible in the public eye. I think I'm just going to sit back and watch from here on out and see where the chips land.

[Jacknch]

Let's move on back to the Court Case please. Other discussions may take place in the General News thread.

[Katymcwaity]

Some more disclosures by Meghan

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Katymcwaity

Some more disclosures by Meghan

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

Well it's not really. It's reported her being not okay with the amount of information the newspaper want. But that is how court works. You can't say I gave him money without them asking to prove it or asking if there is any evidence he gave money to her. Also the claim that the newspapers ruined her relationship is flimsy. Harry never met him. That is one whole questions by the lawyers.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Well it's not really. It's reported her being not okay with the amount of information the newspaper want. But that is how court works. You can't say I gave him money without them asking to prove it or asking if there is any evidence he gave money to her. Also the claim that the newspapers ruined her relationship is flimsy. Harry never met him. That is one whole questions by the lawyers.

I dont really see what her relationship with her father has to do with the copyright case...

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Denville

I dont really see what her relationship with her father has to do with the copyright case...

As the article states, she’s providing this information because MOS lawyers are asking her for clarification on what she means in the legal documents.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

As the article states, she’s providing this information because MOS lawyers are asking her for clarification on what she means in the legal documents.

But that's becuase she seems to have thrown in a lot of stuff about her personal relationships and the Palace not protecting her and so on...

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

But that's becuase she seems to have thrown in a lot of stuff about her personal relationships and the Palace not protecting her and so on...

Yeah so...fair game. Going to court is a blood bath. The ultimate defence of the case lies in the fact that they will want to show that 1. The newspaper didn't ruin her relationship and 2. That she always ,want for it to be public. You have to pick people apart to get that.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Denville

But that's becuase she seems to have thrown in a lot of stuff about her personal relationships and the Palace not protecting her and so on...

Is it? Because that’s not what The Guardian article writes. MOS lawyers have requested clarification on the finance arrangements between Meghan and her father and Meghan is claiming that the financial incentives given by the papers to her father (for the letter) have contributed to the damage to their relationship.

Sounds both reasonable and understandable to me.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Is it? Because that’s not what The Guardian article writes. MOS lawyers have requested clarification on the finance arrangements between Meghan and her father and Meghan is claiming that the financial incentives given by the papers to her father (for the letter) have contributed to the damage to their relationship.

Sounds both reasonable and understandable to me.

Seems reasonable what they have asked for. It's asking for points of clarification about submitted papers.

And Serbourne making a fuss is blowing hot air. He has gotten two of the biggest media trail cases of the year, after Levenson the decade, and I think he will win Depp's (unless something goes wrong this week) and probably loose this. His stratosphere reputation will just get bigger. He doesn't care. Quite the charmer Luvvie from transcripts. But then barristers are actors.

[yukari]

Is it just me, why this legal case sounds more and more like a divorce court battle than copyright issue? As in finger pointing whose fault it is (leading to amount of alimony) complete with child custody with the "child" in question is Mr Markle.

Genuine question, can Meghan's lawyers/legal team just decline/refuse to answer some questions by pointing out that the questions are irrelevant to copyrights issue (the way the judge scrap some of their points last time)?

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by yukari

Is it just me, why this legal case sounds more and more like a divorce court battle than copyright issue? As in finger pointing whose fault it is (leading to amount of alimony) complete with child custody with the "child" in question is Mr Markle.

Genuine question, can Meghan's lawyers/legal team just decline/refuse to answer some questions by pointing out that the questions are irrelevant to copyrights issue (the way the judge scrap some of their points last time)?

But they brought it up themselves in papers. The defence are just responding. They could refuse but then they have no case.

[Madame Verseau]

One thing I noticed in the Guardian article is the mention of a student loan to pay for college. Dad and Sam have been claiming Dad paid 100% for Northwestern, meaning from his own funds. Student loan means a bank or federal student loan agency paid the bills and Markle had to pay the agency back. Big inconsistency.

Also a federal student loan means the student (Meghan) is primarily responsible to pay it back . If the parent is a co-signer the responsibility lies with the parent if the student doesn't pay. Documents would show the terms of the loan. DM or Dad may not have the hard copies therefore the fishing expedition.

[Queen Claude]

I don't know if Thomas Markle is telling the truth but if he claimed that he helped finance Meghan's college education, I don't see it as an inconsistency if he got a loan to pay for her college education versus him dipping into his own funds to pay for her education.