Duke and Duchess of Sussex All Legal Actions Part 2

[wannable]

The Sun and the Daily Mail are the only tabloids  to date that have claimed they are sitting on bad stories. With warning shots fired to Harry's, with little phrases like ''friends'' are loyal, he better fillintheblank.

Scary stuff.

[Curryong]

One would think judging by much of the commentary that that fiend in human form, Prince Harry is accusing a fine and upstanding news organisation of telling lies and hacking into people?s private telephone conversations. No, no no. That would never, never never happen in a million years! Rupert Murdoch just closed down the News of the World simply because the newspaper was too honest for its own good, not because of any wrongdoing!


I can remember much of the same sort of thing as has been reported with this case against a newspaper empire by an extremely biased media when Meghan was suing the DM and Sunday Mail. She?s done this wrong, solicitors did not do that, no proof of certain things, misremembered that, the Palace not backing this or that story etc. The tabloids practically rejoicing in hoping to bring out the champagne!. Plus the Twitter mob, including qualified lawyers, online predicting a complete defeat for her.

And yet Meghan won.

With the Samantha defamation case that ex barrister Tom Bowyer predicted that Meghan should be ?very worried? at the thought that her half sister would ?have the power to force Meghan and Harry to give testimony?. I note he was silent when the Florida judge dismissed much of Samantha?s case. And has been silent about it since. And the media have remained pretty quiet about this particular case as well.

UGH, Bower and Dan Wootton together on that failing British news channel. But here it is, back in February!

Meghan Markle 'should be VERY WORRIED' over defamation case ruling | Tom Bower explains - YouTube

[Curryong]

Plus News Group Newspapers [NGN], which Harry and the others are suing, is part of News UK, which also owns The Sun and The Times. Unbiased reporting indeed.

[HistoryGirl2]

^A newspaper or news organization can report on things that deal with their parent organization and it doesn?t mean they?re lying. Happens all the time here in the US. The Times did the appropriate thing and included the disclaimer that they are owned by News Group.

Additionally, the Times reported actual questions asked by the judge himself, not their own interpretation of the case. It doesn?t mean Harry is going to lose the right to take the case to trial. It means that the judge, like some posters here, are confused about the claims that are being made.

I speak for myself when I say that I take claims of bribery and back door deals quite seriously. As I mentioned before, I?m uncomfortable with the entire thing. So, if Harry has proof that this deal occurred and the terms, I am very interested in finding out the truth behind it. However, I am not going to take his word for it. Everyone else is free to do as they wish.

I do believe Meghan was caught saying things that were less than factual in her case, as well. She still won based on privacy and copyright law in the UK.

I?m interested in facts. Facts that can be proven or disproven. Harry having to prove the claims he?s making isn?t a hate crime or proof that there?s a conspiracy to attack him at every turn. It means he?s being treated like every other claimant, but I suppose for a prince used to special treatment, it must feel like that.

[Nightowl]

^ As usual this couple just love to create drama and trouble for the royal family all for the sake of keeping themselves in the news and rehashing old news  and telling lies again.  There will NEVER be enough money in their bank account to satisfy them or full fill that need for money...money is their God and believe me I know all to well someone like that....Integrity and Honesty come first....then everything else.

Harry is so jealous of his brother and he is reeking of jealousy that it is taking over his life...take way Harry's money what does he have then..or who is he?

[Curryong]

UK Newspaper Group Admits It Unlawfully Gathered Information On Prince Harry | HuffPost Latest News

LONDON (AP) ? The publisher of British tabloid the Daily Mirror has acknowledged and apologized for unlawfully gathering information about Prince Harry in its reporting, and said it warrants compensation, at the outset of the prince?s first phone hacking trial Wednesday.
The admission was made in court filings outlining Mirror Group Newspapers? defense. The group continued to deny that it hacked phones to intercept voicemail messages, and said that Harry and three less-well-known celebrities brought their claims beyond a time limit.

[Curryong]

Second day of the hacking trial at the High Court in London, involving Prince Harry and the Daily Mirror newspaper group.

Mirror hacking trial to hear of press intrusion claims - BBC News

Day two of a trial at the High Court in London over alleged unlawful information gathering by journalists employed by the publisher of the Daily Mirror is getting under way
Prince Harry is one of several high-profile figures bringing claims against Mirror Group Newspapers over stories published between 1991 and 2011
They allege the paper was involved in phone hacking, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities
The Duke of Sussex is set to give evidence in court later this year
On Wednesday, the Mirror publisher apologised to the Duke of Sussex for unlawful information gathering on one occasion
But MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in the cases being examined at the trial, including Harry's.

[wannable]

So far what I'm understanding is out of the 31 Harry points, The Daily Mirror acknowledged/apologized to 3/31, stating the other 28 were either by statements by his staff (JLP) or himself.

[HistoryGirl2]

UK Newspaper Group Admits It Unlawfully Gathered Information On Prince Harry | HuffPost Latest News

LONDON (AP) ? The publisher of British tabloid the Daily Mirror has acknowledged and apologized for unlawfully gathering information about Prince Harry in its reporting, and said it warrants compensation, at the outset of the prince?s first phone hacking trial Wednesday.
The admission was made in court filings outlining Mirror Group Newspapers? defense. The group continued to deny that it hacked phones to intercept voicemail messages, and said that Harry and three less-well-known celebrities brought their claims beyond a time limit.

I?m not really sure what this is supposed to mean from the Daily Mirror. We broke the law only a couple of times, but not all of time? I?m just confused by this.

[HistoryGirl2]

So far what I'm understanding is out of the 31 Harry points, The Daily Mirror acknowledged/apologized to 3/31, stating the other 28 were either by statements by his staff (JLP) or himself.

@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?

[Curryong]

@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?

This is one story. Another referenced Prince Michael of Kent?s finances, which the Mirror group didn?t even bother to defend after his legal team came after them. They simply gave him a payout.

Sherborne now talks about a 2001 Daily Mirror story about actress Amanda Holden and her then husband Les Dennis, the comedian.

He says they were a high profile couple who had been married for several years.

He references a Daily Mirror article from March 2001 - ?Amanda?s fury over her friend?s ?fondness? for Les? - which he says in legal documents was written by ?prolific phone hacker? James Scott.

Scott and the paper paid the private investigator firm TDI more than ?1,000 in the period before or shortly after the article?s publication, Sherborne says in the documents.

Sherborne tells the court it is ?quite clear? the information for the story was obtained by voicemail interception.

After lawyers for the couple wrote to the-then editor Piers Morgan complaining, MGN made no attempt to defend the claim, instead publishing an apology and paying their legal costs, the documents show.

Sherborne argues this is a similar pattern to that with the story about Prince Michael of Kent - that the newspaper is sufficiently confident to publish, but when challenged has to ?back down? because ?they realise they can?t possibly defend their source because it?s illegal?.

[Curryong]

It apologized for a February 2004 article in Sunday People that described ?royal romeo Prince Harry? romancing two ?stunning? models at London's Chinawhite nightclub ?during his boozy night out.?

The publisher said an investigator was hired to engage in unlawful activity, but it said the 75-pound ($95) fee suggested little work was done.

?MGN unreservedly apologizes and accepts that the Duke of Sussex is entitled to appropriate compensation for it,? attorney Andrew Green wrote.

In 2015, publishers of The Mirror printed a front-page apology for phone hacking and tripled its victim compensation fund to 12 million pounds ($15 million).

(Harry had just started dating his longterm girlfriend Chelsy Davy at the time this lie was published.)

[Curryong]

What it?s all about.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65547034

Note the amount this particular newspaper group has had to pay out in compensation for just one case brought against it in 2015.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Gotcha. Thanks, @Curryong! Forgive the dumb question but how exactly do the Daily Mirror plan to defend themselves? Other than the excuse of it being too late to sue, they claim that sometimes journalists used illegal acts but not always. Are they planning on giving up their sources for these stories in court?

[Curryong]

From what I have read some of their defence will be that whatever was done illegally in the ?information? gathering area is on the particular journalists involved when they brought the story to their editors for publication. The chief editors, who included Piers Morgan, knew absolutely nothing of what these journalists were doing. Hardly surprisingly, this has been disputed.

Harry is due to give testimony in court in mid June about his part of the case. There are of course several other people suing in this class action. The whole thing has only just begun so we will see in the next few weeks how things develop and what this newspaper group?s defence is going to be. I?ll be keeping my eyes and ears open on this one and hopefully some British lawyers will be commenting on it online.

[HistoryGirl2]

^How cowardly and unethical. However, that?s pretty much synonymous with Piers Morgan at this point. To just hang journalists to dry as if that kind of thing wasn?t expected of them and condoned by the editors themselves. I will wait for the evidence, but traditionally, I cannot see multiple journalists doing this unless it was common practice in the newsroom and well-known to the bosses.

[wannable]

@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?

Let's wait, that was the first day. Second day there's 100 plus Harry points, latest Telegraph article.

To date, there seems to be 'still' less than a handful of hacking. I gather from the sampling, JLP (KP) Harry himself, Nightclub goers, paid people following in public a public person, a lot of anger about Diana reporting, which the Mirror copy/pasted copyrights purchased from an originator, this last part of purchasing originator according to the Telegraph is most of the points. In reference to paid people following in public a public person, it's not illegal or unlawful. Katie Nicholl is the same age as William, she followed William, Kate, Harry and Chelsy to polo events, nightclubs, hence her meritocracy to getting the job at the Daily Mail. She discovered more than just royalty, she discovered what she called the Williamites, the Harryites, the ladies bathroom drugs going on, who did and did not, etc. It's in the RIF archives, in Google archives of 2000's.

What I find more juicy about Harry's statement is he loved (or still loves) Chelsy, he wanted to wed her. Harry and Chelsy were followed by a paid person to Mozambique, not illegal, the person stayed at the same hotel as the couple, not illegal, caught them smoking canabis, reported it. Things started going South.  Harry has the Right to sue hacking, but Harry has to take responsibility also in many public behaviour instances. He want's bad and ugly not to be reported, well he has to behave in public. Too young then, yes, wild parties, yes.  It's historical and re opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it will be good for himself, don't care for the media, they will always exist.

The titanic job of the Mirror will be/is now to study each point, search the past, check the originator....100 plus points is a lot. It's like the broken thumb, Harry claims he was hacked, Mirror says there were people with him when he broke his thumb. Harry want's to out who told the media about his thumb. This example goes with what not hacked but leaked.

[Curryong]

Third day of the trial, at which the defendants (Mirror group lawyers) begin their defence.

Prince Harry: Claimants a 'long way' from proving case, Mirror tells trial - BBC News

[wannable]

I'll give a recalling of Katie Nicholl, when she got paid the historical GBP 250,000 (a quarter of a Million pounds, no other reporter has had that pay for a royal wedding 1 day reporting) to be the star reporter at William and Kate wedding, she then cashed in months later detail reporting the 'hard job' she had to do since age 22 to land the job as a royal reporter. She said she DID NOT sit at her apprentice DM desk waiting, she WENT OUT to the places the brothers go, BEFRIENDED the doorman, the barman, the maids, the janitor, who then would call her, ''X is here, she then would dress up and go. When I say 'meritocracy' it is because all RR's have said that about her, whilst they were comfy established, the young Katie Nicholl was busting to get exclusives. This methodology SEEMS to be part of some if not most of the Mirror points. The Diana example they gave reported by The Telegraph yesterday evening.

The Diana sampling is hard for H to prove, easy for the Mirror according to The Telegraph, in the article they said that everyone reported that D visited H at Eton for 20 minutes, H statement he is angry about this. They aren't invisible, people, someone will spill the beans when D went and left. Who called, that is what IMO H wants to OUT in each and every point. In this D Eton visit, her spokesperson notified the media she is going to visit her son. With that info, a good reporter will go like if it were a cc, press pen, you know the drill.

[Curryong]

There is absolutely no doubt whatever that British tabloid newspapers engaged in illegal gathering of information against public figures, whether celebrities or no. The newspaper groups themselves have admitted this and that it has gone on for a very long time. Otherwise these groups would not have paid out in the hundreds of millions over the decades.

I believe the practices engaged in by these journalists were and are indefensible. I would have thought that it incomprehensible that anyone would think they behave correctly at all times.

I believe Harry and his co complainants will win compensation for what these newspapers tried to do. In the end I believe it is worth it to show these tabloid newspaper groups up for the nasty, unethical and abhorrent creatures they are.

As for Katie Nicholl, just because she was paid a large salary doesn?t mean every story she filed was ethical or accurate.

Hacking-linked reporter Katie Nicholl wrote second Hugh Grant story based on private phonecalls ? Byline Investigates

?By Graham Johnson

Editor, Byline Investigates

PHONE data relating to actor Hugh Grant appeared in a SECOND story by the same Mail on Sunday journalist who sparked the bitter Plummygate ?hacking? row, Byline Investigates can reveal.

The new article also features sensitive private information about the Four Weddings? star?s former partner Jemima Khan, and her ex-husband ? and serving Prime Minister of Pakistan ? Imran Khan.?

BBC royal expert on Prince Harry press intrusion fails to mention own use of illegal PIs and phone hackers ? Byline Investigates

[wannable]

Sources are not illegal in the UK (nor in any country worldwide, except North K, Cuba, Russia, China). Following a person on a public polo event in a court circular or following a person to a nigthclub a Friday night is not illegal. Following a person daily/every day, literally Monday to Sunday non stop is a stalker = illegal. A court of law is the only way to OUT a ''source''.

As I said, hacking is illegal, to prove 100 plus points of being hacked will be hard for H, and in many of the points (according to The Telegraph) will be easy for the Mirror in this lawsuit.  That is why I mentioned it will be a Titanic Job to whomever is/are the Mirror employees to gather information for EACH POINT that Harry is exposing in his statement.

This reminds me of 20 years ago, the Harry and Chelsy most of the fans were criticising William and Kate for ''cutting'' their circle, they tested friends with fake info. If it landed in the media, the person was outed quietly. William nor Kate went to the media to say such and such is no longer a friend.  Different personalities, behaviours IMO helps a lot or diminishes the person's public persona.

[HistoryGirl2]

^That was actually what I was wondering. Saying that a journalist followed the royals to events is one thing?standard stuff. But will they be naming other sources that aren?t journalists to prove they didn?t spy via hacking?

And I do agree, sleezy is not the same as illegal. All tabloids are sleezy to an extend, but were they committing illegal acts. We already knew some did, otherwise I don?t think they?d pay.

But there did appear to be a cutoff time period to receive compensation? Or am I mistaken? These cases are all starting to blend together for me. So is that the discrepancy? Is the Mirror saying we did it way back when, but not in the majority of the instances Harry is citing? Sorry for the repeat questions, but I?m trying to understand what all is being claimed other than the obvious.

[wannable]

IMO that is what H want's to do, he want's the court to agree with him and ''out'' the source. As I said it is not illegal to follow a public person of interest to a Nightclub, including foreign travel. For what it's worth, they are not ''invisible'', a Mozambique hotel worker with a low wage (I say low wage because of Katie Nicholl how she did it) can easily call a media outlet and tell them Harry is here. Again a source calling a media is not illegal, it is only illegal if the person source is under a NDA with Harry then.  Again, back to William and Kate, after marrying, a RR said they would travel to private island Mustique because it's a private island, how they would get there, by commercial under an alias Mr and Mrs Smith!!!

In the NOTW (News of the world) the itemized Harry hacking number is 13, equate that to meaning NOTW did NOT have nothing anything to prove they did not hack item per item, hence all my comments about hacking and leaked. The key word titanic job of each point.

[wannable]

I have to add that IF the court agrees to 'out' source (s), a fact of circumstance is that it won't be public, IOW the police is called upon to investigate the source (s) from the and PER item vs source per source, the police writes a report of each item/source and delivers to the judge. FOR what it's worth, IMO when Mirror does the titanic job, the Judge will recommend like Sam Markle Florida case, to Harry, to scratch out whatever needs to be out, and keep as I understand to date 3 items.

HistoryGirl2 the deadline (leveson inquiry) was some date (day/month) year 2012, when W accepted an out of court settlement. When, sorry not when,  H broke up with W lawyers one year before the 2012 out of court settlement, so apparently with what H did, he was out of the suing deadline. The Royal Family lawyers, who where also the NOTW lawyers, the law firm with different individual lawyers.

November 2012 also was the month/year when David Cameron, Matt Hancock officially published the government report and made media changes i.e. data protection (meghan won) and other specifics. The document is published in the UK Gov site with a key search word ''leveson inquiry''

[HistoryGirl2]

^So was there a deadline date to submit grievances against the Daily Mirror like there was against NOTW?