Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well it wouldn't be surprising if he did since he's the one who gave/sold the later to the MoS in the first place, co operated with other papers/GMB and has seemingly taken every opportunity to oppose his daughter since the wedding fiasco and "tell his side of the story".
 
I'm taking this with enough salt to turn a freshwater lake into a briny pond but from a quick research, it seems Cosmopolitan is usually reliable with reliable sources but don't quote me on that because I've never actually read the magazine.

Anyways... according to this article, Thomas Markle will be testifying in the court case. On the side of the defendant against his own daughter. :confused:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...ium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCOS

So the article you linked talks about the Channel 5 program he cooperated on back in January 2020.

This is the link directly to Cosmo's own article, which actually sites US Weekly ,about TM's supposed testifying:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...-markle-testify-against-duchess-meghan-court/

Both Cosmo and US Weekly articles were written just days after the exit announcement, and site nothing more than each other as sources. :flowers:
 
Thanks. Obviously I didn't check the dates on the links. ?
 
Well they were named in the confidential section of the hearing. That was done for a reason. I don't see how they can threaten that at all. That is kind of witness intimidation. Shall be interesting to see how it all plays out.
 
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
 
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?

All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.
 
Last edited:
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?

All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.

As the matter is subjudice and none of us really know all the facts of the case, I would advice caution in what is said.
 
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.
 
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.

Is there a need for them to be named?
 
Is there a need for them to be named?

If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.
 
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.

I think he is well aware that the relationship is over in the same way that so many people who have been close to Meghan have discovered (Jessica Mulrooney being the latest) ie when Meghan drops you it is always for good.
 
Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.

They don't care. There will be little winnings in this. Libels dont bring in cash anymore. The reason to take them needs to be about something else.

When newspapers get caught out, pictures that were blatant breaches of privacy or comments in articles. They settle out of court and publish apologies. Says a lot that they refused to in this instance.

There is little point in using for libel if it isn't to stop repeat behaviour in the future. Such as intrucive picture.

The MOS are having a great time. And they are also currently being sued by Depp. At least I think it's the same parent company.
 
Last edited:
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.

What about her? He never mentioned the letter till her friends mentioned it.

She is bringing the court case and if he gives evidence, he will be subpoenaed anyway. This is all on her.
 
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.

I think the fact we don’t see more of this kind of action from Royals etc is that it gets very messy and it probably reflects how upset Meghan is that she is running the gauntlet. The MoS will delighted about the stories that the whole thing generates.
 
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.
 
I dont blame Meghan for fallng out with her father... but it is probalby "for good" and there wotn be any reconcilation.
 
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.

Yes it's appalling, but I save my empathy for women who bring rape trials and have to undergo the most horrendous cross examination. Or for families of murder victims who must sit through them. She brought this case presumably because she thought they would settle. She should have known better.

And unfortunately she is on trial because to win this outright the newspaper have to to make it a reasonable assumption that she intended that letter to be public.
 
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.

Here in America, documents are often redacted on publicly available documents that contain sensitive information (such as loan #, SS#, etc...). Only names of minors are redacted ...so, it seems we have a similar procedure as in Ireland. I don’t find it appalling, I find it very open - that’s how trials should be. Meghan is the one who filed this lawsuit - she’s the only one responsible if her “friends” names leak.
 
I've always had a feeling that the letter was written with an assumption (or maybe even hope?) it might become public. It dosen't give too many personal details, but carefully lists all that Meghan's done for her father.
I wouldn't be surprised if M prompted her friends to talk about the letter when Thomas Markle obviously didn't.
Maybe she wanted the world to know that she cares for her father. Or maybe she wanted a "good" reason to go to court...
 
I agree RoyalNight. I think she always expected either details of the contents of the letter, or the full letter itself to be released. I don't for a moment believe that 5 individuals all dared go behind her back to speak to the media without either her direct consent, or at least a wink wink nudge nudge situation. Even her unofficial spokesperson Omid was interviewed where he said she wrote it expecting the contents to be made public and would have written it with that in mind. "So many of the things in that letter were written with the public in mind. She very much wanted to set the record straight".
 
But isnt she saying that she didn't ask her friends to release the letter?
 
I've always had a feeling that the letter was written with an assumption (or maybe even hope?) it might become public. It dosen't give too many personal details, but carefully lists all that Meghan's done for her father.
I wouldn't be surprised if M prompted her friends to talk about the letter when Thomas Markle obviously didn't.
Maybe she wanted the world to know that she cares for her father. Or maybe she wanted a "good" reason to go to court...

Of course it was, that much has been obvious almost from the start.
Just as I don’t buy that Meghan did not give the okay for her friends to speak to People.
She and Harry berated her father for talking to the press, and then cut him out completely. But her friends do the same and.. she protects them?
Both went against palace recommendation to **** the hell ip, yet one gets dragged and the others are protected!!
Naaa, I say publish their names.


Meghan is blaming MOS for dragging the case, yet she is the one who keeps tagging on unneeded info.
This should have been a straight forward case, yet Meghan seems to be unable to let it be what it should be.
 
Here in America, documents are often redacted on publicly available documents that contain sensitive information (such as loan #, SS#, etc...). Only names of minors are redacted ...so, it seems we have a similar procedure as in Ireland. I don’t find it appalling, I find it very open - that’s how trials should be. Meghan is the one who filed this lawsuit - she’s the only one responsible if her “friends” names leak.

I think I meant that it is an appalling situation to go through. I believe that all courts should be transparent.

The UK and Irish system do vary somewhat in this. I know there are differences in naming people in court cases and I believe the Irish case is much stricter when it comes to woman and rape cases for example.
 
Yes she is Denville. Wouldn't be much of a case if she didn't.
Imo, this is all a way to 'get back' at the media. Both H+M are clearly angry (I even agree with them in some cases), but they are now trying to throw anything and everything at the court case because they want the press to 'pay' for their crimes.
 
But isnt she saying that she didn't ask her friends to release the letter?

She is. And hence the fact that they will in all likelihood be called. Because its game set and match if the defence can make that a reasonable assumption.
 
Last edited:
I think I meant that it is an appalling situation to go through. I believe that all courts should be transparent.

The UK and Irish system do vary somewhat in this. I know there are differences in naming people in court cases and I believe the Irish case is much stricter when it comes to woman and rape cases for example.


Got it..I agree, especially if these friends have kept quiet and been “good soldiers”
 
Meghan gave the names of the friends through confidential filing as required. Identities if part of the process are revealed at trial. Revealing before a trial date reeks of witness intimidation by DM: drop the suit Meghan or we'll destroy your friends. By stating the friends are private citizens which may means it's not Serena Williams or Jessica Mulroney. I thought Dad was DM's star witness...or did DM found him wanting and a problem in the witness box?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom