The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/)
-   -   Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/harry-and-meghan-legal-actions-against-the-media-46799.html)

Elenath 08-06-2020 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams (Post 2332654)
People are forgetting themselves a bit. Any court employee who has access to court documents will have to log in to a system that will trace who is pulling up the documents and when. If there was any suspicion that these leaks were internal, the judge simply would have pulled a record of who accessed the records. And if you were Meghan's team and were accused of leaking but didn't, you would demand that someone check who has accessed the documents.

Granted, I haven't the faintest idea what type of system the courts in the UK uses, but where I work, I can log into the system and as long as I don't change anything, no-one will know.

The system records changes, nothing else.

Quote:

You are basically saying everyone else is the leaker. Everyone else is the cause of this stuff. They aren't.
Actually no. I said this:
Quote:

I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.
I don't really care if she did or not. If she never leaked she'd be the only one in those bloody offices. There have been stories for years of members of the royal family to leak things to the press. Just to get favorable stories out. Currently it's William and/or Catherine, afraid of their own "failing popularity".

It seems like that entire family is one big popularity contest. And if it's not the members themselves it's the courtiers and press offices.

poppy7 08-06-2020 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elenath (Post 2332682)
Granted, I haven't the faintest idea what type of system the courts in the UK uses, but where I work, I can log into the system and as long as I don't change anything, no-one will know.

The system records changes, nothing else.



Actually no. I said this:

I don't really care if she did or not. If she never leaked she'd be the only one in those bloody offices. There have been stories for years of members of the royal family to leak things to the press. Just to get favorable stories out. Currently it's William and/or Catherine, afraid of their own "failing popularity".

It seems like that entire family is one big popularity contest. And if it's not the members themselves it's the courtiers and press offices.

I think the spike stories and PR offensive started by others is not the same to be honest. To be honest the last time it was like this Diana and everything that surrounded her.

Elenath 08-06-2020 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2332687)
I think the spike stories and PR offensive started by others is not the same to be honest. To be honest the last time it was like this Diana and everything that surrounded her.

Charles using his own sons to get better press? That was long after Diana died. If, and I say if, Meghan and/or Harry cooperated with Finding Freedom, the main question is, to what extent. Was there one interview? Two or more interviews? Did they get a list of questions to answer? Did they ghost write the book.

As for the leaking, for me it all depends on what they leaked. For me there is a difference in leaking information about oneself or information about others (like Charles and now, supposedly, William).

There are some people out there who believe every story in the papers was, and still is, leaked by the Sussexes and that I don't buy. There are some who believe it's Kensington Palace.

https://www.her.ie/celeb/palace-tryi...te-feud-438995

https://duchessofinfluence.com/2020/...with-tabloids/

poppy7 08-06-2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elenath (Post 2332691)
Charles using his own sons to get better press? That was long after Diana died. If, and I say if, Meghan and/or Harry cooperated with Finding Freedom, the main question is, to what extent. Was there one interview? Two or more interviews? Did they get a list of questions to answer? Did they ghost write the book.

As for the leaking, for me it all depends on what they leaked. For me there is a difference in leaking information about oneself or information about others (like Charles and now, supposedly, William).

There are some people out there who believe every story in the papers was, and still is, leaked by the Sussexes and that I don't buy. There are some who believe it's Kensington Palace.

https://www.her.ie/celeb/palace-tryi...te-feud-438995

https://duchessofinfluence.com/2020/...with-tabloids/

That Charles has done that is well documented. He basically spiked stories on himself and gave them.stories of the boys. Well known spike tactic. No you can't have this.story but I will give you that one. The politics of the game.

That the Sussexes leaked every story I don't believe. That Kensington palace trade stories and spike stories yes...but, as of yet, we have no evidence they leak persae.

Heavs 08-06-2020 02:53 PM

When you're the claimant in a privacy and copyright case which hinges on whether or not you intended for the letter you wrote to your father to be leaked to gain sympathy and whether you organised friends to leak on your behalf and the judge in the case agrees in the official documents that your side currently is actually leaking to sympathetic journalists, that's pretty ironic and paints a picture.

Then there's the fact that one of them wrote a book which you also claim to have nothing to do with.

The DM is vile but in this case they aren't the ones that are trying to claim moral high ground and to protect their reputation either.

akina21 08-06-2020 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2332660)
Nothing was "confirmed" -- what the judge said to the MOS claim that it was "likely."

Personally I am sure they did give a heads up to friendly press. Interesting enough the Telegraph actually wrote their story before Omid though MOS singled him out. It was going to be public info anyways but seems that her team did alert them. But it is far from confirmed in those documents. Just pointing that out.

Both sides were trying to play this out in public. Judge rightfully pointed it out and said to stop the delay tactics.

The MoS probably wants to subpoena Omid and use the book as further proof that Meghan underminded her own privacy . There is also an interview in which Omid declared that Meghan wrote the letter with the public in mind and expected the letter to be published .

acdc1 09-03-2020 04:01 PM

The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard

yukari 09-04-2020 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 2340358)
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard

Honest question; so it's possible to make a court case in London to sue a LA based company for something that happened in Vancouver to an American citizen who now resides in LA?

Wow, that's three countries and two continents involve there.

Duke of Marmalade 09-04-2020 04:33 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chie-park.html

there is more to come, once the kid will grow older he will be in public much more.

Tarlita 09-04-2020 05:16 AM

But isn't this old news that has been resurected again. I thought this was in the news back in March.

evolvingdoors 09-04-2020 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarlita (Post 2340414)
But isn't this old news that has been resurected again. I thought this was in the news back in March.

There was a court hearing yesterday.

Lori138 09-04-2020 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 2340358)
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard

Those photos were published in many newspapers and magazines, including several in Canada. There is no law about taking pictures in public places in Canada. If she doesn't want her photo taken, she should stay home.

Mbruno 09-04-2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yukari (Post 2340394)
Honest question; so it's possible to make a court case in London to sue a LA based company for something that happened in Vancouver to an American citizen who now resides in LA?

Wow, that's three countries and two continents involve there.


I suppose there could be a court case in London if the photos were published in the UK. Otherwise, as you have implied, I think UK courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter.


I wonder why she is not suing in Canada or in the US, but rather only in the UK.

REAL COUNTESS 09-04-2020 03:21 PM

Meghan and Harry must be loved by Lawyers,they make a ton of money of them. I feel for Archie he will not be able to play outside,because someone may make a photo of him. If it will be in a park,this is not private property. On their property that's different of course. But always sue not a great idea. Well it is not my family.

yukari 09-04-2020 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2340465)
I suppose there could be a court case in London if the photos were published in the UK. Otherwise, as you have implied, I think UK courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter.


I wonder why she is not sueing in Canada or in the US, but rather only in the UK.

That's the question, isn't it? It would be even funnier if the paps turns out to be an American working for American paps agency.

If the problem is with UK tabloids (or MailOnline), why not suing them?
But then again, there's lots of Pippa and Arthur's paps snaps (in public, but both are private citizens unlike Meghan at that time). Or say, the Philips and the Tindalls, say at Balmoral which is a private property. So the tabloids maybe can get away with it, especially since they didn't print Archie's face.

Isn't it said that Canada has better privacy law? Why not fill the case there? Or in LA? Weren't there some cases where celebrities won a case for privacy invasion towards their children in LA?

At this rate, it starts to look as if they're setting score with UK press.

evolvingdoors 09-05-2020 04:07 AM

The funny thing is, that there are other paparazzi pics of them in LA, taken by a different pap agency... yet they are not suing them.

To me the major part of the lawyer words is this:
Quote:

This was without their acquiescence or consent and it is accepted that it was by an employee of the (US agency), Steve Dennett.'
So... is the lawyer saying that other pap pics of them in public were done with their "acquiescence or consent"?

Quote:

'at the private home of the claimants' and said he was 'casing their home, testing his light meter and taking photos through the security fence, so he was not at the park by accident'.
What he means is: the photographer was standing in public territory with his camera taking pictures with his camera..
I do not think it is illegal, standing on a public area and taking pictures of a house and property.

"he was not at the park by accident"
Probably not, but the park is a public place and it is vast.. he would have had to know Meghan would be at that specific pathway at that specific time.


Several paparazzi's, and Finding Freedom too, have said out loud or alluded to the fact Meghan have called them before, there is therefore reason to assume that she has done so too during her time in the royal family, and after leaving for LA.

Lee-Z 09-05-2020 04:55 AM

Can't shake the impression that they are not so much wanting to "Find Freedom" but they actually want to "Find Control".

Denville 09-05-2020 05:15 AM

what about the pictures of them in LA delivering food? are they suing whoevever took these photos?

Osipi 09-05-2020 05:24 AM

The more lawsuits appear as time goes by, the more I'm in agreement with Lee-Z that they're not "finding freedom" but trying to "find control". This tells me that they have no concept whatsoever of the "real" world.

Perhaps they think that every picture taken that isn't "authorized" by them is a lawsuit and by filing mega lawsuits, only "authorized" photos will ever be available for public consumption. This has as much chance of happening as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and fully assembling a 747 jet. In fact, I think its the opposite that will happen. It'll become a game to get as many "unauthorized" photos of these people as they'll be the "big money" shots. As long as the paps stay in legal bounds, all that will happen is the Sussexes shell out a whole lot of green dollars in court and lawyer expenses.

What's next? Will the Sussexes take a page from Michael Jackson's playbook and require Archie to wear a face covering every time he steps out somewhere public? :biggrin:

poppy7 09-05-2020 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2340516)
what about the pictures of them in LA delivering food? are they suing whoevever took these photos?

They can't because they aren't on private land and they don't include a minor. To be honest, since his face isn't shown, this case is flimsy. They are out of control in my opinion at the moment.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises