Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media - Page 83

Denville · #**1641** 08-04-2020, 04:39 AM

This case was started before they left the RF and really has nothing to do with the RF per se. Meghan seems to have thrown in a lot of stuff about how the BP staff didn't protect her but it has nothing to do with the case and will be probalby thrown out by the judge.

ACO · #**1642** 08-04-2020, 11:05 AM

The results of the latest hearing will be revealed tomorrow. I would guess they will rule for the names to be revealed.

Eskimo · #**1643** 08-04-2020, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

The results of the latest hearing will be revealed tomorrow. I would guess they will rule for the names to be revealed.

They never had a legal leg to stand on with the “super-charged” privacy BS. IMO, they knew they were going to lose and this would give Meghan a good, face saving excuse to drop the case.

Heavs · #**1644** 08-04-2020, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimo

They never had a legal leg to stand on with the “super-charged” privacy BS. IMO, they knew they were going to lose and this would give Meghan a good, face saving excuse to drop the case.

It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.

There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.

HighGoalHighDreams · #**1645** 08-04-2020, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs

It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.

There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.

I have addressed this before, but Meghan is the plaintiff. If she chooses to withdraw the case, the defendant cannot “refuse.” You cannot force someone to sue you.

Of course, a plaintiff can express a desire to reach a settlement and the defendant can refuse. This is not (anywhere close to) the same thing as dropping a case.

Heavs · #**1646** 08-04-2020, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

I have addressed this before, but Meghan is the plaintiff. If she chooses to withdraw the case, the defendant cannot “refuse.” You cannot force someone to sue you.

Of course, a plaintiff can express a desire to reach a settlement and the defendant can refuse. This is not (anywhere close to) the same thing as dropping a case.

Yes, I think that's what was eventually discussed last time but I couldn't remember the details. And again as I said, we have no idea how true it is in the first place. Though it's possible they expected a settlement when they first started out. Though maybe not as they attempted to make it a trial of her entire treatment by the media.

Eskimo · #**1647** 08-04-2020, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs

It sounded like "it would be too high a price to pay" if the names were released to the public was setting up for a face saving dropping the case if tomorrow's judgement goes against them. Well four of them since one has already been accidentally used in court. Though it's possible the judge will rule to protect their anonymity.

There was some discussion that Associated Newspapers had already been approached by Meghan and Harry's legal team about withdrawing or discontinuing and had refused but there seems to be no proof of that.

Meghan can drop the case anytime she wants. If they approached the defendant, it might have been for a settlement or some sort of agreement about legal fees. Meghan is liable for the other side’s legal fees if she withdraws

Leopoldine · #**1648** 08-04-2020, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher

It is weird to sue for privacy but then give friends information to leak information that is very private. That is where they look like hypocrites and I want to root for them as a woman of color myself. I feel they didn't like how they left, so they want to ruin the rest of the Royal family.

They appear to have not thought this out. It is so obvious that the forthcoming book has benefited from a lot of cooperation from this "inner circle" we keep hearing about. Did Harry really tell other people about how he "tucked into a roast" with HM?

Having just read "Royals at War", it may be that the big rumpus over this other new book "Finding Freedom" is supposed to take focus away from "Royals at War", which, to employ some British understatement here, is not that sympathetic to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Plus, Lady Colin Campbell's book is in the mix. While many people may write her off as a sensationalist, she is an excellent promoter of her books and they sell.

ACO · #**1649** 08-05-2020, 05:36 AM

Judge ruled they will remain anonymous.

https://twitter.com/pa/status/1290945752483672064?s=21

Denville · #**1650** 08-05-2020, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

They appear to have not thought this out. It is so obvious that the forthcoming book has benefited from a lot of cooperation from this "inner circle" we keep hearing about. Did Harry really tell other people about how he "tucked into a roast" with HM?

Having just read "Royals at War", it may be that the big rumpus over this other new book "Finding Freedom" is supposed to take focus away from "Royals at War", which, to employ some British understatement here, is not that sympathetic to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Plus, Lady Colin Campbell's book is in the mix. While many people may write her off as a sensationalist, she is an excellent promoter of her books and they sell.

Of course they sell but I doubt if most UK people at least believe them. She has come out with so many weird and wonderful things.. perhaps she believes them herself but they are plainly not true.

poppy7 · #**1651** 08-05-2020, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

Judge ruled they will remain anonymous.

https://twitter.com/pa/status/1290945752483672064?s=21

Interesting. I didn't think they would get that ruling. Case will go ahead so.

ACO · #**1652** 08-05-2020, 06:14 AM

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.

poppy7 · #**1653** 08-05-2020, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.

So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?

ACO · #**1654** 08-05-2020, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7

So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?

Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.

Tatiana Maria · #**1655** 08-05-2020, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. [...]

Could you provide the link to the full ruling? Without the context, I would not necessarily interpret the quote as "questioning why"; the judge would likely have obtained the medium's reasoning from its submissions and would rule on it in the judgment.

Elenath · #**1656** 08-05-2020, 06:32 AM

Here is a link to an article in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-loses-latest/

poppy7 · #**1657** 08-05-2020, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.

Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.

Tatiana Maria · #**1658** 08-05-2020, 07:00 AM

Here is the ruling:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...associated.pdf

poppy7 · #**1659** 08-05-2020, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Here is the ruling:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...associated.pdf

That is quite the wrap on the knuckles. I mean the media are behaving per the media. But a slap for Meghan.

ACO · #**1660** 08-05-2020, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7

Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.

Agreed. That was always my stance. There was zero reason (other than front pages and clickbait) for the friends to be revealed now. If they are called to give statements on record, then that’s different. Until then source protection works both ways.