The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1961  
Old 01-07-2021, 08:34 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,685
The more I read about this, the more I think "can of worms".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 01-08-2021, 01:28 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,669
With me, its "fractured fables". Twisted words, twisted meanings and reading a lot between the lines.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1963  
Old 01-08-2021, 01:48 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 134
Follow up article:
How Prince Harry's Latest Lawsuit Shows He is Still Committed to Britain

Quote:
A document setting out his now settled libel claim against U.K. tabloid the Mail on Sunday reads: "[Prince Harry's] reputation is inextricably tied up with and substantially depends upon his links with the military and his role in promoting the welfare of its current and former members."

It adds: "[Prince Harry's] reputation would have been particularly harmed in the eyes of military and ex-military personnel by reason of the allegation that he had generally snubbed and turned his back on his comrades and Britain's military community."

The case has been settled out of court with the Mail on Sunday printing an apology and paying an undisclosed sum to the Invictus Games Foundation.
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 01-08-2021, 09:49 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,669
One thing I'll say about Harry is that through years of watching him and where his passions and interests lie, one thing I've *never* questioned was Harry's staunch dedication when it came to needs of his military comrades whether it be physical or mental. I don't see that going away anytime soon even should he retreat further from public eyes and decide to raise penguins on the Inner Solomon Islands.

I was also heartened to hear that the settlement of the lawsuit was donated to the Invictus Games. Very, very fitting.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 01-11-2021, 09:23 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 3,093
Several off topic posts have been removed. This thread is for discussions about legal actions by the Sussexes against the media, it is not the place to bring up unrelated comments. As always, and as set out in the rules of this forum, if you have questions regarding moderator actions they should be addressed to one of the moderators via private message.
Reply With Quote
  #1966  
Old 01-19-2021, 02:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,731
https://apnews.com/article/meghan-ma...863cc9e348a2e8


This hearing was held today- 1/19/21



Quote:
LONDON (AP) — Lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex asked a British judge on Tuesday to settle her lawsuit against a newspaper before it goes to trial by ruling that its publication of a “deeply personal” letter to her estranged father was “a plain and a serious breach of her rights of privacy.”
Meghan’s latest attempt to protect her privacy laid bare more details of her fraught relationship with her estranged father, who claims he has been “vilified” as a dishonest publicity-seeker.
The former Meghan Markle, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers for invasion of privacy and copyright infringement over five February 2019 articles in the Mail on Sunday and on the MailOnline website that published portions of a handwritten letter to her father, Thomas Markle, after her marriage to Britain’s Prince Harry in 2018.
Associated Newspapers is contesting the claim, and a full trial is due to be held in the autumn at the High Court, in what would be one of London’s highest-profile civil court showdowns for years.
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 01-19-2021, 06:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
https://apnews.com/article/meghan-ma...863cc9e348a2e8


This hearing was held today- 1/19/21
Quote:
“At its heart, it’s a very straightforward case about the unlawful publication of a private letter,” he said at the start of a two-day hearing, held remotely because of coronavirus restrictions.
(...)
Rushbrooke said the fact that the duchess is a public figure “does not reduce her expectation of privacy in relation to information of this kind.”

He said “the sad intricacies of a family relationship … is not a matter of public interest.”
This!
Why oh why they didn't go with this argument (and stick to it) from the start? No need to drag the York girls nor the "no-support from BRF" only to state later that she got their advice ...

For everyone's sake, I hope the judge will grant Summary Judgement. OTOH I bet MOS really wants to drag this to full trial so they can milk it as much as they can.

From ITV by Chris Ship (I like him because his reports are always mostly just stating facts):
Meghan's lawyers: The 'triple barrelled invasion' on privacy and why they say the Mail cannot win
Quote:
(...)
Her legal team argues that the Mail on Sunday committed a “plain and serious breach” of Meghan’s privacy when, in February 2019, it published extracts from the letter she had sent to her father about the breakdown of their relationship.

The case, they claimed, centres around one simple question: who has the “rights of control” over the contents of a letter which is “self-evidently private and sensitive”.

Justin Rushbrooke QC, for the Duchess of Sussex, told the judge that it doesn’t matter “whether the writer of the letter is a Duchess or an ordinary citizen” but, he said, it is clear that Meghan, not the Mail on Sunday, has the rights of control over its contents.

Meghan wrote the five-page letter to her father in August 2018 and sent it by FedEx recorded delivery to her father at his home in Mexico.

The Duchess started her 1250-word letter with the sentence: “Daddy, it is with a heavy heart that I write this, not understanding why you have chosen to take this path, turning a blind eye to the pain you’re causing”.

Extracts, also read out in court include Meghan writing:
(...)
Wouldn't it be really ironic if in worst scenario this go to trial (I say worst because even though Meghan win in the end, things potentially can turn ugly), more of the content of the letter was revealed to public, more than what People and MoS has published.

Btw, because I have time to spare, I browse through social media (mainly twitter and IG).

So, the pro-Meghan [...] claims that if she happens to win on all counts, there will be an accusation from anti-Meghan side that the judge is an enemy of the people and that 300 years of press freedom have come to an end.

While on the other side, the anti-Meghan troop claims that if MoS win, the pro-Meghan [...] will accuse the judge (and UK) as racist.

Poor Mr Warby ...
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 01-19-2021, 06:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 924
I don't know if she'll win or not but the case is more complicated than just that they published a private letter. Otherwise it wouldn't have gone this far in the first place.

Including but not limited to Meghan writing the letter with an expectation that it *would* be published and wanting it to be published. That her father was the one who gave it to the papers and that the world wouldn't have known about it in the first place if her friends hadn't gone to People Magazine, probably with her agreement ala the Scobie book and details from this case itself being given straight to Scobie to publish on his social media before the documents had even been filed by the court. And the Mail doing the same. Issues that the Judge brought up before.
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 01-19-2021, 07:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: tacoma, United States
Posts: 499
Sadly this is still going on. This letter did not fall from the sky. The MoS got it from Mr Markle?, if not him, who?, somebody must have given it to the Tabloid, so it could be published. Maybe one of her Bff's. Maybe she should have sat down and actually talk to her father, this may not happen, unless somebody listen to their conversation now that would really be invasion of privacy. Unless she registered the letter as copyright, which I don't think so. Maybe one of her so called friends gave it to the MoS, because she, he did not get enough time with her? who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #1970  
Old 01-20-2021, 06:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Btw, because I have time to spare, I browse through social media (mainly twitter and IG).

So, the pro-Meghan [...] claims that if she happens to win on all counts, there will be an accusation from anti-Meghan side that the judge is an enemy of the people and that 300 years of press freedom have come to an end.

While on the other side, the anti-Meghan troop claims that if MoS win, the pro-Meghan [...] will accuse the judge (and UK) as racist.

Poor Mr Warby ...
The pro-Meghan are already blaming Justice Warby of being a bought justice by the royals and being racist just by some of the past hearings.
They are also continuing to spread misinformation that the aides were instructed by the palace to ruin Meghan reputation... anyway all the usual conspiracy theory ****.

I have not seen a single nati Meghan account who is claiming anything bad about justice Warby in anyway.. maybe I'm following the more sane accounts?


Anyway, as for the lawsuit.
more and more is coming out proving that the royal family lawyers were right in telling Meghan to not file this (and you wonder if they even knew she was helping Omid write FF). Apparently now we have Sara, Samantha cohen, Christian Jones (who have just changed positions in the cambridge household) plus Jason... all willing to come forward with statements.

Her own story keeps changing..

Many of us said this lawsuit was a very bad idea and that many truths she wished to keep hidden would be exposed, well... shrugs.
Reply With Quote
  #1971  
Old 01-20-2021, 12:53 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,699
Let's stay on the topic of the actual Court Case itself. Posts about Covid-19 and Harry's Military career have been removed.

Further, we discussed whether or not the proceedings should have been brought in the first place well over a year ago - and several times since - there is no point in continuing that line of discussion again.

Finally, please avoid dismissive terminology when discussing people regardless of whether they support the Sussexes or not.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1972  
Old 01-20-2021, 02:58 PM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
Her own story keeps changing..

Many of us said this lawsuit was a very bad idea and that many truths she wished to keep hidden would be exposed, well... shrugs.
which truths are you referring to?

i do agree however, that everyday this case is turning murkier. it is exposing the sussexes as liars, as manipulative, and as a self-centered bunch, bitter towards the RF - when all they are is because of the RF.
__________________
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.
https://www.humanesociety.org
Reply With Quote
  #1973  
Old 01-20-2021, 03:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
which truths are you referring to?

i do agree however, that everyday this case is turning murkier. it is exposing the sussexes as liars, as manipulative, and as a self-centered bunch, bitter towards the RF - when all they are is because of the RF.

I could be wrong, but I think @evolvingdoors was talking about how Meghan said that she didn't have anything to do with Finding Freedom, but she eventually admitted that she gave private information to the authors via a third party.
Reply With Quote
  #1974  
Old 01-20-2021, 04:49 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 726
Four of Harry & Meghan's staffs (Samantha Cohen, Jason Knauf, Sara Latham and Christian Jones) will be giving evidence to the Court hearing. All four staff members have stressed that they would be neutral and not taking a side.

Quote:
All four of the former Sussex staffers say they do not “wish to take sides in the dispute” between Meghan and the newspaper.

“Our clients are all strictly neutral”, writes their representative at the legal firm Addleshaw Goddard.

However, the joint letter does state that they are “in a position to assist the Court by giving evidence at trial relevant to any of the issues in dispute”.

The letter does not say which of the four individuals has any relevant evidence but it makes clear that “one or more” of them would “be in a position to shed some light” on three specific issues.
Harry and Meghan's former staff say they would give evidence in court
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-20/...dence-in-court

Chris Ship has also retweeted his previous tweet that The Mail on Sunday believes that Meghan's privacy case should be heard in trials. Mr Justice Warby has thanked both sides and will reserve his judgement. It's either a full trial in October or a summary judgement soon.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
After a day in which the Mail on Sunday made its case that Meghan's privacy case against it SHOULD be heard at a trial, Mr Justice Warby thanked both sides and said he'll reserve judgement.
He's got quite a task ahead:
Either a full trial in October or a summary judgement soo
3:57 AM · Jan 21, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...36831449923585
Reply With Quote
  #1975  
Old 01-20-2021, 07:06 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,760
I think the mistake Meghan made was not naming her father in the suit. Markle was not forced to give that letter to the Mail. He gave it to the paper of his own free will and I see no evidence of extortion. Meghan tried to say Markle was manipulated by the press but the judge didn't buy it. If this goes to trial she may have no choice but to go after him.
Reply With Quote
  #1976  
Old 01-20-2021, 07:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,088
This won't get a summary judgement and then the Sussex's will withdraw over some putting well being of their family first. They have too much to loose from this. The Newspaper have literally nothing to loose.
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 01-20-2021, 07:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
This won't get a summary judgement and then the Sussex's will withdraw over some putting well being of their family first. They have too much to loose from this. The Newspaper have literally nothing to loose.

I have to agree that it's likely that there won't be a summary judgement. Justice Warby is expected to give his decision at a later date and there is speculation that it will be around mid February.



Haven't the Sussexes already tried to withdraw?
Reply With Quote
  #1978  
Old 01-20-2021, 07:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I think the mistake Meghan made was not naming her father in the suit. Markle was not forced to give that letter to the Mail. He gave it to the paper of his own free will and I see no evidence of extortion. Meghan tried to say Markle was manipulated by the press but the judge didn't buy it. If this goes to trial she may have no choice but to go after him.
I don't think suing her father over the letter was what she wanted. It wasn't even about this letter. And I don't think it would have gone over very well with the public that she wrote a letter to her Dad and then sued him when he gave it to the MoS. Which he clearly did of his own free will as well as talking to many other outlets.

What she/they really wanted was to go after the tabloid press in general and try and make this a trial of their time in the UK, which we can see from how they tried to hang a lot of other things on it and the judge didn't go for it at all and the waters got muddier and muddier with the Scobie "revelations".

They used this one as the starting point for all that because they were probably advised this was the clearest case they had a chance of winning because copywrite is supposedly not he said/she said which this turned into anyway -which they still might win I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 01-20-2021, 09:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
I have to agree that it's likely that there won't be a summary judgement. Justice Warby is expected to give his decision at a later date and there is speculation that it will be around mid February.



Haven't the Sussexes already tried to withdraw?
They tried to settle but newspaper said no.
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 01-20-2021, 09:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 134
Reposting links to the latest witness statements (if anyone still interested):

Thomas Markle
Edward Verity (MoS Editor)
Keith Mathieson (on behalf of MoS)

Tom admitted that he's the one who reached out to MoS:
Quote:
10. Until I read the article in People magazine I had never intended to talk publicly about Meg's letter to me. The content of that article caused me to change my mind. (...)

11. Although I was approached by other journalists for comment after the article in People magazine was published, I decided to reach out to Caroline Graham of the Mail on Sunday to say that I wanted to get the truth out there. I never asked for and I never received any payment for the article.
Verity confirmed Tom-Graham's meeting which lead to publication and also mentioned about the "Palace Four".
Quote:
15. I have recently had a meeting with a senior member of the royal household ("the source"). The meeting took place in person less than three months ago. I had met the source on a previous occasion. The source had direct knowledge of the matters they told me about and which are set out below. I have absolutely no reason to think the source was being anything other than completely truthful. They were fully aware of the matters in dispute in these proceedings and how important they were to me and the company I work for. This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me.

16. The information the source gave me included the following:
16.1. There were several drafts of the Letter (as defined above).
16.2. Jason Knauf, a member of the Kensington Palace communications team, worked on those drafts with the Claimant.
16.3. A lot of the tweaking of the drafts was done by electronic means of communication.
16.4. Sara Latham, who worked as a communications professional for the Claimant and her husband, assisted the authors of Finding Freedom by performing a role that was essentially fact-checking, to make sure the authors got nothing wrong.
16.5. A woman called Keleigh at Sunshine Sachs was responsible for making calls to 'open doors' to the authors of Finding Freedom.
16.6. The source believes that Omid Scobie was given a copy of the Claimant’s letter and that was going to ‘one of the big reveals’ in the Book.
(Now, who is this "source"?)

Mathieson (or MoS) elaborated further about the "Palace Four" and the insinuation of letter revelation in Finding Freedom. (it mentioned about US Privacy Law too which may be the reason Meghan didn't sue People mag)
Quote:
8. Following service of the Defence, the Defendant began to receive information suggesting that the Claimant had cooperated with the authors of a book about her, which was coming out in summer 2020. The Defendant received information from an individual I will call “Source Z”, who is a journalist who had been in close contact with someone (who I’ll call “Y”) who was involved in the events in question and has direct knowledge of them. Source Z told the Defendant, amongst other things, that they (Source Z) knew from Y that the authors were aware of the existence of the Letter in January 2019, before the publication of the article in the People magazine. Source Z also knew from another person with direct knowledge of events (“X”) that there were communications between Friend A and the authors on the phone and by email, and that Friend A had given them the same information as had later appeared in People magazine, in some cases “word for word” the same. According to Source Z, Friend A would never do anything without the Claimant’s permission. The authors had become cross upon publication of the People interview because their exclusive had been handed to other people.
If this goes further to trial, things will really get ugly ...

And if you're interested to read their Skeleton Arguments:
Claimant's Skeleton Argument
Defendant's Skeleton Argument
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dubai duke of sussex facts games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels norway prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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