The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1781  
Old 10-08-2020, 02:03 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,752
Harry and Meghan settle and get an apology from paparazzi agency

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/b...imes&smtyp=cur
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1782  
Old 10-08-2020, 02:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,351
Good! A settlement and apology. That should mean no more drones flying over their property taking unauthorised photos.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1783  
Old 10-26-2020, 06:45 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,400
According to Katie Nicholl on Vanity Fair, Harry has sent a legal warning to The Mail on Sunday for publishing a "false and defamatory” article about his relationship with the Royal Marines

Prince Harry Sends Legal Warning to the Same Newspaper Meghan Markle Is Suing
His lawyers accused the Mail on Sunday of publishing a “false and defamatory” article about his relationship with the British Armed Forces.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...sunday-marines

Link to the Mail on Sunday's article that Harry is directing at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Marines.html
Reply With Quote
  #1784  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:28 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,351
Good. I'm glad Harry has done this. I wouldn't touch that lying rag with a twenty foot barge pole. If they happened to say the sky is blue I would check it the next time I was outdoors!
Reply With Quote
  #1785  
Old 10-28-2020, 08:53 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,752
Meghan's team has a semi private hearing (media being shut out) tomorrow as it appears she does not want to go to trial and wants the judge to do a ruling based on what has already been presented.

Seems the press are a bit taken back by the fact they have been denied access to this hearing. A judge doesn't typically grant that unless for some specific reasons. I have a theory but shall be an interesting next few days.

And if granted it is clear they won't be in the UK come January.
Reply With Quote
  #1786  
Old 10-28-2020, 09:50 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Interesting.
So now that FF can be used by the MoS she doesn't want to go to court?
Yea, that's not suspicious at all./sarcasm
Reply With Quote
  #1787  
Old 10-28-2020, 09:55 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,183
The articles I am seeing state that Meghan is requesting a postponement.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acy-trial.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...s-prince-harry

ETA:
Chris Ship is tweeting that Meghan is requesting both a postponement and summary judgement.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has requested a delay to the privacy case she is bringing against the Mail on Sunday. The full hearing was scheduled to begin at the High Court on January 11 2021. A judge will hear the arguments tomorrow.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
The requested delay is, in part, being laid at the Mail on Sunday's door, as it was the newspaper which applied and won an application to include the Finding Freedom biography in its defence. That has created more work for Meghan's lawyers as they pursue their privacy claim

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 1h
Meghan's legal team is now applying for a "Summary Judgement" which would make the whole trial in January unnecessary. They say it's because they are so confident of their case in law and will argue tomorrow that the case should be determined on a "summary basis".
Reply With Quote
  #1788  
Old 10-28-2020, 11:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
The articles I am seeing state that Meghan is requesting a postponement.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acy-trial.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...s-prince-harry

ETA:
Chris Ship is tweeting that Meghan is requesting both a postponement and summary judgement.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has requested a delay to the privacy case she is bringing against the Mail on Sunday. The full hearing was scheduled to begin at the High Court on January 11 2021. A judge will hear the arguments tomorrow.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
The requested delay is, in part, being laid at the Mail on Sunday's door, as it was the newspaper which applied and won an application to include the Finding Freedom biography in its defence. That has created more work for Meghan's lawyers as they pursue their privacy claim

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 1h
Meghan's legal team is now applying for a "Summary Judgement" which would make the whole trial in January unnecessary. They say it's because they are so confident of their case in law and will argue tomorrow that the case should be determined on a "summary basis".
Nope, Summary Judgment is:,
"Summary judgment is a procedure used in civil litigation. Where summary judgment is granted, the proceedings are brought to a prompt end without the need for a full trial."
I am told it is fairly common to apply for, but I still find it odd it is done now.
and it is still seeking to end the case without going to trial and having to provide testimony.
Why now? what has changed? well... Finding Freedom being included in the defense has.
Reply With Quote
  #1789  
Old 10-28-2020, 11:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,351
Meanwhile, on another front, Harry's lawyers sent the Mail on Sunday a warning letter about their 'false and defamatory' article inferring that Harry had totally ignored the Royal Marines since leaving England.

The lawyers stated that in fact Harry had been in touch with various officers of the Marines on a regular private and public basis. He has requested a letter from Lord Dunnart, which he never received be sent to him in Los Angeles.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrit...atory-article/
Reply With Quote
  #1790  
Old 10-28-2020, 11:56 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,752
There are two hearings tomorrow per court listings.

10am private (no media/public)
11am public (open for public to hear)
Reply With Quote
  #1791  
Old 10-28-2020, 12:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,608
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrit...atory-article/

"To say he has not been in touch with the Marines is not the case. He had many conversations with former colleagues during the lockdown and is in regular contact with a lot of military personnel on a private and personal basis."

Beyond confirming that he's been in touch (at least once presumably) with the RM's it doesn't actually say which colleagues or what type of military personnel he's been in contact with. So make of that what you will.
Reply With Quote
  #1792  
Old 10-28-2020, 01:07 PM
Lori138's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 114
ETA:
Chris Ship is tweeting that Meghan is requesting both a postponement and summary judgement.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has requested a delay to the privacy case she is bringing against the Mail on Sunday. The full hearing was scheduled to begin at the High Court on January 11 2021. A judge will hear the arguments tomorrow.

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 2h
The requested delay is, in part, being laid at the Mail on Sunday's door, as it was the newspaper which applied and won an application to include the Finding Freedom biography in its defence. That has created more work for Meghan's lawyers as they pursue their privacy claim

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv 1h
Meghan's legal team is now applying for a "Summary Judgement" which would make the whole trial in January unnecessary. They say it's because they are so confident of their case in law and will argue tomorrow that the case should be determined on a "summary basis".[/QUOTE]


This doesn't make sense. On one hand they say the defence needs more time to prepare, on the other hand they say they have enough to win a judgement in the case without a trial. Which is it?
Reply With Quote
  #1793  
Old 10-28-2020, 02:08 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,752
It seems to me that she just wants the Judge to give a verdict without a trial but in case it is denied... they also want it postponed? And that was the easiest reason to give?

Either way it is clear they trying to avoid returning in January.
Reply With Quote
  #1794  
Old 10-28-2020, 03:36 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrit...atory-article/

"To say he has not been in touch with the Marines is not the case. He had many conversations with former colleagues during the lockdown and is in regular contact with a lot of military personnel on a private and personal basis."

Beyond confirming that he's been in touch (at least once presumably) with the RM's it doesn't actually say which colleagues or what type of military personnel he's been in contact with. So make of that what you will.
What was the exact claim in the article? I guess it would be about Harry not showing interest in his regiment that he was honorary colonel of. Being personally in touch with former friends from the military is quite different from checking in with the 'royal marines'.
Reply With Quote
  #1795  
Old 10-28-2020, 03:38 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,552
How would a summary judgment work? I would think it could never be held against the defendant not being able to provide a full defense/argumentation, so anything unsolved would be deferred to the defendant; so a summary judgment would be higher risk for Meghan and her team? Would that be a correct summary?
Reply With Quote
  #1796  
Old 10-28-2020, 03:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,532
It seems to me - and I'm no legal expert - that they are trying to avoid it going to trial which Meghan's team are saying it 'because they are so confident of a win' but seems a bit suspicious after hearing the other side were willing to call Meghan, her father and the authors of Finding Freedom to testify in Court that Meghan's team now want a judge to decide to avoid that.
Reply With Quote
  #1797  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
It seems to me that she just wants the Judge to give a verdict without a trial but in case it is denied... they also want it postponed? And that was the easiest reason to give?

Either way it is clear they trying to avoid returning in January.
Well it will be highly embarrassing for them. The other side will ripe them apart. Win or lose and it will make them look horrendous. I have no sympathy for them.
Reply With Quote
  #1798  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:39 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 513
The function of a trial is to determine contested facts. The law is then applied to the facts to determine an outcome. If X sequence of events in fact occurred as determined, the law considers this is "a breach of copyright" or whatever else, and the law prescribes such a range of penalties.

Summary judgment is when one or the other (and often both) parties essentially tells a judge: Look, even if everything the other party says is true, we still win this case. There is no need to have a trial (again, the purpose of which is to determine facts) because even if we agree everything Other Party is saying is true... we still win.

To plug that into Meghan's situation, Meghan is saying: Even if everything the DM says in their version of facts is 100% true, we would still win the case 100% of the time because no jury or judge could find differently according to the law.

A judge will then review the case, reading both side's version of facts and assuming for the moment that everything the DM has said is true. If it's the case that Meghan would win even if the DM's version of facts is 100% right, Meghan is entitled to summary judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #1799  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:50 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
The function of a trial is to determine contested facts. The law is then applied to the facts to determine an outcome. If X sequence of events in fact occurred as determined, the law considers this is "a breach of copyright" or whatever else, and the law prescribes such a range of penalties.

Summary judgment is when one or the other (and often both) parties essentially tells a judge: Look, even if everything the other party says is true, we still win this case. There is no need to have a trial (again, the purpose of which is to determine facts) because even if we agree everything Other Party is saying is true... we still win.

To plug that into Meghan's situation, Meghan is saying: Even if everything the DM says in their version of facts is 100% true, we would still win the case 100% of the time because no jury or judge could find differently according to the law.

A judge will then review the case, reading both side's version of facts and assuming for the moment that everything the DM has said is true. If it's the case that Meghan would win even if the DM's version of facts is 100% right, Meghan is entitled to summary judgment.
Majorly embarrassing though.
Reply With Quote
  #1800  
Old 10-28-2020, 06:40 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Well it will be highly embarrassing for them. The other side will ripe them apart. Win or lose and it will make them look horrendous. I have no sympathy for them.
I don't see how it is embarrassing. Sounds like they are fairly confident in the case and want it sped up. I also just learned Prince Charles did the same with his copyright case to.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names baptism birth britain britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house colorblindness countess of snowdon customs dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg medical meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal family nepalese royal jewels pless prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii royal jewels royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex swedish queen thai royal family tradition uae customs united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×