Duke and Duchess of Sussex All Legal Actions Part 2

[PrincessOfPeace]

Here's a link you should be able to read.

https://archive.ph/YNBTO

[TLLK]

 Here's the article so everyone has the opportunity to read it. Thanks for the link @PrincessOfPeace .  :computer:

It is a time-honoured tradition in journalism, used to convey anything from a government spokesman talking off-record to, in some unethical quarters, made-up quotes.
But unnamed ?sources? will no longer speak for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their team have promised.
The Sussexes? communications team at Archewell will speak on the record or not at all, as fans of the couple are warned to pay no heed to mystery ?sources? claiming to talk for them in the press.
It follows the couple?s campaign against sections of the media, which the Duchess has criticised as a ?model that rewards chaos above truth?.
The Duke, who has a job at the Aspen Institute?s Commission on Information Disorder, has similarly condemned the "avalanche of misinformation" to be found online.
The move is aimed at boosting media literacy, making clear to followers of the Sussexes when stories are true, confirmed by a spokesman, and when they are not authorised by Team Sussex.It will require a marked difference in reporting, particularly in the United States, where flattering comments about celebrities from unnamed sources are common in even upmarket showbiz magazines.

Anonymous ?friends? have long been speaking about the Duke and Duchess, with some genuine associates doing so in a bid to protect Meghan against what they considered unfair coverage elsewhere.
Her recent court case against the Mail on Sunday arose from a handwritten letter to her father first revealed by anonymous friends in People magazine in the US.
The article saw five friends telling ?the truth? about the Duchess in February 2019, after a series of articles alleging she had behaved badly while at the palace.
"Forget the fact of who she's married to: She was royalty from the day I met her," said one. "The way she carries herself, interacts with people, is how you would expect an actual royal to behave. She personifies elegance, grace, philanthropy."
Another said: "She can make a five-star meal out of the garbage in your refrigerator."
After the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor in 2019, a source told Harper?s Bazaar magazine: ?The baby is the most peaceful, placid child you?ll ever meet. They are so proud but probably quite relieved to have gotten the photos out the way ? They?re rather tired!?
And when his little sister Lilibet arrived earlier this year, a source told US Weekly: "Harry adores Lili and loves reading her bedtime stories and rocking her to sleep. Every day just gets happier."
Some anonymous sources have previously provided briefings that have turned out to be an accurate reflection of what the Duke and Duchess think.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal heard details of an email sent by the Duchess to Jason Knauf, then her communications secretary, in which she provided a memo before he spoke to her biographers.
It read, in part: ?The Queen offered Windsor which the couple gratefully accepted. They are also very happy to have the space and privacy that Windsor affords. Being able to go for long walks, etc.?
The published book, Finding Freedom, included the passage: ??As a place to raise a child, it's really lovely?, a trusted confidant of Meghan?s said.
?They could open their door and have all of those private gardens. Both of them felt it would be a really positive thing for their child to be there, go on walks privately.?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex used to be represented by their own press secretary at Buckingham Palace and before that at Kensington Palace, before leaving the working family for a new life in California.
They now employ a team to run their non-profit foundation Archewell, which has commercial television and audio production arms to work on their content for Netflix and Spotify.
The team includes executive director James Holt,  who was promoted from their press secretary, global press secretary Toya Holness, and head of communications Christine Schirmer.

[Macrobug67]

What a weird article.  Promises no more unnamed sources followed by multiple comments by unnamed sources.

[Nightowl]

I wonder why the article did not mention the Oprah Interview which shows all the lies that Harry and Meghan told to the world about the royal family that gave them everything they have today and that all those *lies* can be fact checked and were, millions and millions in their bank account and still they are ...whatever , I see them as miserable human selfish human beings.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Meghan to receive just ?1 from Mail on Sunday for privacy invasion | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian

[TLLK]

I'm pleased to see that this will be the end of the appeals from ANL and Mail Online. Not surprised to read that there was just a symbolic payout in damages and that the media group has to cover the substantial cost for her legal fees. Curious to know what the "unspecified amount" will be for damages.

The Mail on Sunday will pay the Duchess of Sussex just ?1 in damages for invading her privacy by publishing a private letter she had sent to her father.

The nominal sum is set out in court documents that also formally confirm that the newspaper ? and its sister website MailOnline ? has accepted defeat and will not be taking the long-running case to a supreme court appeal.



The newspaper?s publisher has also agreed to pay a confidential sum in damages for copyright infringement. The Mail on Sunday also faces having to cover a substantial part of Meghan?s legal costs, which could be more than ?1m.

[sara8150]

Mail On Sunday will pay Meghan Markle just ?1 in damages for privacy | Daily Mail Online

Meghan Markle Will Receive Symbolic ?1 After Winning Privacy Case | PEOPLE.com

Meghan Markle to receive surprising sum from Mail on Sunday in privacy court case - report | HELLO!

[PrincessOfPeace]

Meghan has complained to the BBC about Amol Rajan's reporting on her legal victory over The Mail on Sunday.

Meghan complained after Rajan, presenter of the BBC2 documentary The Princes and the Press, told listeners of the Harry, Meghan and the Media podcast that she had apologised for "misleading" the court.

The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-complains-to-bbc-over-claim-she-misled-privacy-case-vj8mj25xj?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1642436421

Archive: archive.ph

[wannable]

She can't remember 40 pages of emails, text messages   😢

[sara8150]

Meghan Markle issues complaint after Amol Rajan says she misled court in podcast | Daily Mail Online

Meghan Markle complains to BBC over coverage of her privacy win - after it said she apologised for misleading court

[PrincessOfPeace]

BREAKING: Prince Harry has launched a High Court libel action against the publisher of the Daily Mail. It is not known which specific title or article the claim relates to.

https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1496557076931305479?s=20&t=km8jAFLwp2eVjXVAQ-OdYg

[TLLK]

I read on another site that it's regarding the recent photos taken at the restaurant with the Brooksbanks.

[PrincessOfPeace]

It says 'libel' action. Pics would probably fall under privacy.

[PrincessOfPeace]

It's understood the claim relates to an article published by The Mail On Sunday from 20th February, which reports on security issues, under the headline "Revealed: How Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret", according to @PA.

https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1496597330925170691?s=20&t=82oGbqxaIzAHxbstIEsdlg

[TLLK]

The Daily Telegraph's Article about the most recent lawsuit.

https://archive.fo/UhPMi

The Duke of Sussex has launched a libel action against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday over a story alleging that he lied about offering to pay for his UK police protection.
The claim was lodged with the High Court on Wednesday afternoon.
It is the latest in a string of claims the Duke or the Duchess of Sussex have brought against tabloid newspapers.
Prince Harry is currently embroiled in privacy claims against News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun, as well as Mirror Group Newspapers, now Reach, over alleged phone hacking and unlawful information gathering.
He is also involved in litigation against the Home Office over his security arrangements when he is in the UK.
The Duke last month threatened to sue the Home Office over its refusal to provide security when he visits the UK. He said he would not bring his family to Britain unless he received police protection.
The Duke, who has argued that he ?inherited a security risk at birth?, insisted that he had offered to pay for the Scotland Yard protection officers himself but that the offer had been declined.
The Mail on Sunday, which broke the news of the legal action in January, last weekend alleged that he had tried to keep details of the case secret from the public.
The article, also published on MailOnline, said High Court documents showed he had sought a far-reaching confidentiality order on paperwork and witness statements surrounding the case.
It suggested that his PR team had briefed journalists that Prince Harry was being ?denied the right to pay for bodyguards?, which had led to inaccurate reports across the media.
The article claimed the Duke did not offer to pay for his police protection when he travelled to London last June to unveil a statue of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, only making the offer in later correspondence.
The Duke?s legal firm, Schillings, has alleged that the claims he lied about offering to pay for his protection and that he wanted the existence of the litigation to remain confidential are false and defamatory, the Telegraph understands.
The legal action has led royal observers to believe it is unlikely the Duke will bring his family back to the UK for the Queen?s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June.
In a statement issued in January, an unnamed legal representative for the Duke said he had ?inherited a security risk at birth?, pointing out that he had ?served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan? and that his family has been subjected to ?well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats? in recent years.
The legal representative said that the Duke had ?first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham? when his departure for the US was being discussed, adding: ?That offer was dismissed.?
The spokesman said the Duke remained willing to cover the cost of security.
His position was challenged in court last week when lawyers for the Government accused the Duke of not showing officials enough ?respect?.
Robert Palmer QC said the Duke had ?failed to afford the necessary measure of respect? to Priti Patel and a panel of specialists ?as the expert, and the democratically accountable, decisionmaker? on security and risk assessment.
In documents handed to the High Court, Mr Palmer noted that the Duke still had a ?form of exceptional status? whereby he would be given protection depending on the reason for his visit. He said if the Duke lost the case, the Government would seek the full costs, including those of the ?confidentiality exercise?.

[wannable]

LOL

[PrincessOfPeace]

Still no lawsuit against Valentine Low and The Times about Meghan bullying her staff at KP.

[Curryong]

The results of the Inquiry into bullying allegations at KP and elsewhere (against Meghan and presumably others, senior staff etc) has not yet been published among the Sovereign Grant documents. The Inquiry may still be ongoing for all we know. In the circumstances Meghan may well have been advised by her legal team to wait until the results of the Inquiry are published in SG reports, and then decide whether any legal proceedings on her behalf should proceed or not. (If she is even mentioned there, which IMO she may well not be.)

[PrincessOfPeace]

Maybe but Harry and Meghan don't have to wait on the inquiry. They know if the allegations are true or false. Valentine Low said Meghan bullied staff to the point of at least one having to get councelling. Pretty damning allegations and given how litigious the couple are it seems odd imo they don't sue.

[Curryong]

Meghan doesn?t HAVE to wait, true. However, as I?ve said she may well have been advised to wait by experienced lawyers in London. What if she sues now and more potential legal cases come out in July when the SG papers are released? She could well be mired in a case against the Times and Low at a time when vital new evidence has been brought forth via the Inquiry results. There would be very few lawyers who would advise beginning a case against a journalist or organisation who were involved in the publicising of allegations pertinent to any official Inquiry being set up, as they were.

As for Low he published allegations only that were clearly aimed by the Palace and royal sources as trying to sink Meghan and Harry?s Oprah interview just before it aired. The result of that little manoeuvre however was that it probably only brought more viewers. And it has to be emphasised, those are allegations only, not sworn facts. And Harry incidentally did take successful action against the Times with regard to their story about his Royal Marines involvement.

[sara8150]

Prince Harry Files New Libel Complaint Against Daily Mail Publisher | PEOPLE.com

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60508521

Prince Harry launches libel action against Mail on Sunday | Prince Harry | The Guardian

Prince Harry launches new legal battle as Duke prepares for High Court libel showdown | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

[TLLK]

Here's the Daily Telegraph's story on the lawsuit.

archive.ph

The Duke of Sussex suffered ?substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress? after a Mail on Sunday report about one of his other court cases inspired a ?feeding frenzy of hostile comments? online, his lawyers have claimed.
The Duke is suing The Mail on Sunday over what he believes is a defamatory exclusive story which told ?how Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret ? then minutes after MoS broke the story his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute?.
His lawyers say the story, and subsequent ?adverse and hostile? online comments, were ?self-evidently exceptionally serious and damaging? and constitute an ?attack on his honesty and integrity? which ?undermines his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work?.
He has ?suffered serious damage to his reputation and substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress which is continuing?, they say, in a High Court case seeking ?aggravated damages? for the Duke.
The Mail on Sunday story refers to a separate legal case brought by the Duke against the Home Office. He is seeking judicial review of the Government?s decision not to provide police protection for him and his family when they are in the UK.

The newspaper first revealed he was taking legal action in an online story on the evening of January 15, and in print on January 16.
After the paper went to print, and shortly after it was posted on MailOnline, the Duke?s team sent out a statement confirming that the Duke was seeking judicial review, believing the UK to be unsafe for his family to return to, and noting: ?The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.?
At that time, the Duke was discussing the details of his departure from official royal duties with his brother, father and grandmother at what has become known as the ?Sandringham Summit?.
When the court case had its first hearing on February 18th, lawyers acting for the Government appeared to challenge that statement, saying the offer of payment ?was notably not advanced to Ravec [the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures]? when the Duke visited the UK in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.
In any event, the court documents note, ?personal protective security is not available on a privately financed basis? and Ravec does not make decisions on security on the basis of payment.
The following weekend, The Mail on Sunday published a second story stating that ?the revelations are a crushing rebuttal to Harry?s initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill?.
In papers now filed to the High Court, the Duke?s lawyers claim the court hearing ?was no rebuttal at all to the Claimant?s public statement, let alone a ?crushing? one?.
They argue it refers only to the Duke?s dealings with Ravec, and not his offers of payment for police protection made to other parties.
The Duke ?has been upset (but sadly unsurprised) by the Defendant?s distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in breach of the most basic journalistic standards and ethics,? they say.
They object particularly to the suggestion that the Duke tried to keep his legal claim a secret, and the idea that he ?improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion by authorising his ?spin doctors? to put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection? after The Mail on Sunday story was published.
They also object to the word ?EXCLUSIVE? being used to promote the story, its prominence on MailOnline, and the ?numerous gratuitous photographs of the claimant and his wife and family?.
When the online article invited readers to ?share what you think?, they say, the public responded with more than 6,460 comments, ?the majority of which are adverse and hostile?.
The ?exceptionally serious and damaging? claims ?constitute an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work in general, and in efforts to tackle online misinformation in particular (through the Archewell Foundation)?, legal documents argue.
?It must have been plain to the [Mail on Sunday] that by giving these serious allegations such huge publicity in the terms and manner that it did, leading to inevitable repetition and the feeding frenzy of hostile comments, it could not but cause [Prince Harry?s] reputation substantial damage and cause considerable distress and hurt to the [Duke?s] feelings, as has been the case.?
The Duke?s lawyers asked for the story to be taken down from MailOnline.

It is alleged that The Mail on Sunday, in response, accused Prince Harry of ?chill[ing] further discussion? and issuing proceedings for his own ?media management purposes?, ?as part of his continuing self-declared battle with anyone in the media who dares to publish anything about him which is less than flattering?.
As a result of failing to take the story down, his lawyers say, Prince Harry has ?suffered increased upset and distress and injury to his feelings?.
The Duke is seeking damages including aggravated damages for libel, an injunction preventing The Mail on Sunday from re-publishing defamatory statements, and publication of the High Court?s judgment.
Associated Newspapers Limited, which publishes The Mail on Sunday, are defending the claim.

[PrincessOfPeace]

I cringe at Harry's lawyer saying his "Feelings have been hurt".

[TLLK]

I cringe at Harry's lawyer saying his "Feelings have been hurt".

Well I certainly hope that going forward that he chooses to not read the online tabloid comments. I'm understand  that he's done so in the past but had hoped that he'd given it up. It's rare when there isn't some ridiculous comment about any story over there.

[wannable]

Apparently the Lawyer has apologized to the Judge/to the court.  All the latest above has been scratched out of the claim (document), the Judge will keep half of the document secret, not for public consumption (lawyer.com says that means Harry will lose, hence the secret).  Him feeling unfit to work or do anything has nothing to do with the original claim of requesting UK police protection. 

I don't know what Harry or his lawyer was thinking, but with the I feel and external organizations, companies saying he is unfit to work equates to his team trashed themselves.  Anyway, this part as of yesterday's hearing is out.