Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Curryong]

He has never said that he got a loan though. He (and Samantha) have always insisted that he paid for Meghan's college education and that he has the receipts to prove it. He's never produced them however.

[Denville]

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.

But what has her relationship got to do with the case which Is as I understand that the paper breached copyright law by publishing her letter

Originally Posted by 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.

Either way he paid it.. unless she took out the loan herself and was responsible for paying it back...

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Curryong

He has never said that he got a loan though. He (and Samantha) have always insisted that he paid for Meghan's college education and that he has the receipts to prove it. He's never produced them however.

IIRC he stated that he paid 100% of her tuition, which may or may not be true and Meghan claimed that she contributed to her tuition through work study jobs. Again I am not seeing an inconsistency if he actually got a loan versus paying out of his own funds.

Also I / we may be incorrectly connecting dots. We know about the loan through the court case. Thomas claimed that he paid tuition and funded other things, so it could be that he did use his own funds and got a loan.

P.S.
I actually recall reading that he used lottery winnings to pay for her education, but I don't recall if it was Thomas himself saying it or a source.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

IIRC he stated that he paid 100% of her tuition, which may or may not be true and Meghan claimed that she contributed to her tuition through work study jobs. Again I am not seeing an inconsistency if he actually got a loan versus paying out of his own funds.

Also I / we may be incorrectly connecting dots. We know about the loan through the court case. Thomas claimed that he paid tuition and funded other things, so it could be that he did use his own funds and got a loan.

P.S.
I actually recall reading that he used lottery winnings to pay for her education, but I don't recall if it was Thomas himself saying it or a source.

I don't know whether he did pay or not.. but since Meghan was a high school kid, I'm assuming that SOMEONE paid her fees whether it was her father, a loan her father took out or some kind of student loan financial arrangement that she took out herself... and has repaid.

[ACO]

What I remember was Meghan saying that she went to college through family support, scholarships and work study. She never claimed Thomas didn't help her. That was Thomas and Samantha screaming that Thomas paid for 100% of her schooling. And IIRC her school confirmed she was in the work study program and did have a scholarship. I remember Samantha had to backtrack then she claimed that was "book and party money and didn't mean much." They can't even keep their stories straight. Then again Thomas contradicts himself constantly. That is nothing new.

Not sure what that has to do with copyright though. But i am not surprised MoS keeps asking for these "clarifications" thought they not really telling us anything new.

[Denville]

It has nothing to do with copyright but Meghan's statement a week or so ago was all about how the Palace had failed to protect her etc.. so Its hardly surprising that the Mail is bringing up all these questions.. since she seems to have "started up" by bringing up issues such as BP's "protection" of her, that had nothing to do with the case....

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

It has nothing to do with copyright but Meghan's statement a week or so ago was all about how the Palace had failed to protect her etc.. so Its hardly surprising that the Mail is bringing up all these questions.. since she seems to have "started up" by bringing up issues such as BP's "protection" of her, that had nothing to do with the case....

I think you think these things are black and white and dare I say it fair. Court is a blood bath. They will drag up everything and anything. Just the way it goes.

No point saying it has nothing to do with copywriters. A straight copywrite case is Mickey mouse and would never make it to court.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by poppy7

I think you think these things are black and white and dare I say it fair. Court is a blood bath. They will drag up everything and anything. Just the way it goes.

No point saying it has nothing to do with copywriters. A straight copywrite case is Mickey mouse and would never make it to court.

Of course court is a "blood bath" in that barristers play hardball. They want to win their case.. Meghan seems to have been the one who raised these issues in the submissions to court, about her relationship with THomas Markle.. and her situation with BP. So of course the Mail's lawyers will jump on any inconsistencies in her case just as her barristers wil do with what the Mail says.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

Of course court is a "blood bath" in that barristers play hardball. They want to win their case.. Meghan seems to have been the one who raised these issues in the submissions to court, about her relationship with THomas Markle.. and her situation with BP. So of course the Mail's lawyers will jump on any inconsistencies in her case just as her barristers wil do with what the Mail says.

So what is your point then? If it is accepted in court submissions it is to do with with the case.

[Denville]

But its not to do with the case is it because the case is about (as far as I know)whether the Maial breached the law in publishing the letter. That has nothing to do with whether T Markle paid her tuition fees or whether she felt that BP didn't protect her from negative presss...

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

But its not to do with the case is it because the case is about (as far as I know)whether the Maial breached the law in publishing the letter. That has nothing to do with whether T Markle paid her tuition fees or whether she felt that BP didn't protect her from negative presss...

Law suits like this are about reputations. Basically she is taking on the whole kitchen sink. Leave her at it.

Ultimately there is only one reputation on the line hers. Despite what she may thinks. Won't touch the royals. Won't touch the media. Won't touch her father. She is taking on all those untruths that have been written about her. Stamping her foot and wailing life is fair. No one will care. Well they will. They will care about whether she got these friends to give an interview.

[Madame Verseau]

If Markle got a student loan for Meghan it would be on his federal income tax return at the time, listed as a deduction or tax credit depending on the tax code. Also if he had lottery winnings to pay for university he would had to pay federal income tax on it. If he won and it's not on the tax return Markle has some explaining to do.

And it is about reputation. DM is banking its case on Markle who already has credibility problems with Pap gate. A skilled lawyer can take him down.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

If Markle got a student loan for Meghan it would be on his federal income tax return at the time, listed as a deduction or tax credit depending on the tax code. Also if he had lottery winnings to pay for university he would had to pay federal income tax on it. If he won and it's not on the tax return Markle has some explaining to do.

And it is about reputation. DM is banking its case on Markle who already has credibility problems with Pap gate. A skilled lawyer can take him down.

Well the defence are going to try and show she lies. We all lie.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Well the defence are going to try and show she lies. We all lie.

surely if Meghan paid it, herself via a student loan, it would be easy for her to prove it? TM is an old guy, and seems disorganized, I doubt if he has receipts for payments he made years ago...

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Well the defence are going to try and show she lies. We all lie.

You might say we all lie at times but to lie under oath in a court is altogether different. There you MUST admit to your lie if proven. This particular court case is only about the "letter" and 5 friends that leaked it. If a strict judge is on the bench, that will be the only thing entered. Everything else dismissed. No race problem, Royal Family not helping, media hating her....nothin else but the letter as was in the original papers. We will see what kind of back bone the judge has and if the law is followed. Judge already refused a few added things her attorney wants place into case. They can always file another case on other topics later. This stuff happens all the time and a judge should not allow after original case is granted. Happens in the office constantly. JMO

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

surely if Meghan paid it, herself via a student loan, it would be easy for her to prove it? TM is an old guy, and seems disorganized, I doubt if he has receipts for payments he made years ago...

The newspaper will sort out all his paperwork. He may not have receipts but the other side will and where money came from etc.

I wouldn't worry. It she has bare faced lies about things they will find the evidence.

She never claimed to pay for it herself though.

Originally Posted by Winnie

You might say we all lie at times but to lie under oath in a court is altogether different. There you MUST admit to your lie if proven. This particular court case is only about the "letter" and 5 friends that leaked it. If a strict judge is on the bench, that will be the only thing entered. Everything else dismissed. No race problem, Royal Family not helping, media hating her....nothin else but the letter as was in the original papers. We will see what kind of back bone the judge has and if the law is followed. Judge already refused a few added things her attorney wants place into case. They can always file another case on other topics later. This stuff happens all the time and a judge should not allow after original case is granted. Happens in the office constantly. JMO

Things will change day by day. Even when the court case starts. Although for the defence. To show she lies is to be part of the case and relevant. Because then she could be lying about the five friends.

[ACO]

Both sides will go after each other. That is expected. And both sides are well aware of it hence why neither wants to settle.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by ACO

Both sides will go after each other. That is expected. And both sides are well aware of it.

Not quite true. She wont go after them. It is to show what they said was wrong. Not attack them. They will attack her.

[Queen Claude]

I think that things have been muddied since the beginning. Meghan, the claimant did not limit things to the publication of the letter, the statement by her legal spokesperson mentioned that publication of the letter was part of a campaign against Meghan and Harry and that proceedings were being initiated to redress the copyright infringement and the media agenda.

Regarding lottery winnings being used to fund Meghan's education that I mentioned in a previous post, I did a web search and that happened in the early 90s when Meghan was a child, so the tuition that was funded was not college tuition but private school tuition.

[Osipi]

I'm thinking more and more that I really wish there would have been some kind of gag order on both parties against disclosing any kind of information from the lawsuit itself to the public. It *was* mentioned that its the prosecuting lawyer's belief that the MoS is using this lawsuit to generate articles about the lawsuit which does make them using it for a profitable advantage.