Team Sussex: The Sussexes Legal Action Part 1

[Curryong]

I know very well that Harry?s case is a civic one. And as for backlog, all the good intentions in the world from authorities aren?t going to produce judges and senior QC?s needed from outer space for both civic and criminal cases. It?s not so much the buildings, it?s the actual courtrooms.

When I lived in England in the 1980s and 1990s there were what most people would regard as long delays in the court systems for both criminal and civic cases. And from what I have heard from the wide variety of people I am still in contact with there, the situation has not improved much. The Covid crisis instead lengthened the delays in BOTH jurisdictions. And it is the same in Aus.

And there are delays in various civil proceedings which Covid has hindered.

Justice secretary must ?get to grips? with escalating civil court delays - Legal Futures,third%20from%202019%20to%202023.

And in spite of the WOW in your first post on this subject, Charles and the Crown do not have anything to do with delaying or postponing ANY cases in England or Wales in either jurisdiction.

[wannable]

I only DID an objective truth.  Both links especially the government UK link is about Criminal Courts, which as far as I know Harry nor anyone related to his case is in Jail waiting for the criminal courts to be updated. Anyway, IF anyone is truthfully and really interested in reading the link I placed. When you scroll down, it's not accepting anymore inquiries because they are 'up dated'. 

[wannable]

National statistics
Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2023
Published 1 June 2023

1. Main Points
Increase in County Court claims, driven by money claims   Compared to the same period in 2022, County Court claims from January to March 2023 were up 8% to 443,000, the highest volume since Q1 2020. Of these, 371,000 (84%) were money claims (up 9%). Compared to the same quarter in 2019 (pre-covid baseline), County Court claims were down 18%.


^ Why am I not surprised that people sue for moneys  :hehe: :wink:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023

[TLLK]

Inside Meghan Markle's Court Showdown With Half Sister

Meghan Markle is two weeks out from a make or break fight to get her half sister's libel lawsuit thrown out.

Samantha Markle sued the Duchess of Sussex over her Oprah Winfrey interview and comments made in her Netflix series Harry & Meghan.

Meghan's lawyers have asked the judge to dismiss the case without a trial, which would allow the royal to swerve the need to submit to a deposition, to testify and to potentially release private messages.

The two parties will go head-to-head in a high stakes hearing listed for November 8 at 1.30 p.m. ET, at the Federal Court in Tampa, Florida.

[Curryong]

I?m putting this in the Team Sussex thread as it is a win, so far, for Harry and his fellow litigants.

?The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with claims against Associated Newspapers of unlawfully obtaining information, as a court ruling opens the way for a trial.
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers wanted to stop the case, arguing claims of getting "information by deception" were out of time.
But a judge has decided the case, involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants, can proceed.?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67122719

[wannable]

It's a 'go ahead' for ''trial'', which may go whichever way depending on proof.  Speculation is rife on both sides. BUT the pressure is more towards the individuals to show the proof - hence the go ahead. It's a double edge sword. I think like some people in lawyer.com said, the Judge wants to put them on the stand (the trial) to see what they have.

[Curryong]

It's a 'go ahead' for ''trial'', which may go whichever way depending on proof.  Speculation is rife on both sides. BUT the pressure is more towards the individuals to show the proof - hence the go ahead. It's a double edge sword. I think like some people in lawyer.com said, the Judge wants to put them on the stand (the trial) to see what they have.

This is a Civil Case and the burden of proof is different.

https://jbsolicitors.com.au/burden-of-proof-in-civil-cases/#:~:text=The%20burden%20of%20proof%20in%20a%20civil%20case%20differs%20from,a%20higher%20level%20of%20certainty.

The burden of proof in a civil case differs from that in a criminal case. The balance of probabilities standard prevails. This means that a party must present evidence that is more probable than not. Whereas, the criminal standard ? ?beyond a reasonable doubt??  necessitates a higher level of certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecution must persuade the jury that the evidence presented at trial leaves no other possible plausible explanation.

However, the balance of probabilities standard allows judges to:

Weigh the evidence; and
Decide which party has presented the more convincing case.
This standard ensures fairness and prevents the excessive burden that a higher standard may impose in civil matters.

[wannable]

The ''acusations'' have to be proved by the party (Harry and Co), like they said from listening devices 'inside a car' to the tapping of phones. I am 99% sure the police will be involved. As I said and agree with the convo in lawyer.com it is a double edge sword.

The words the lawyer.com use is ''there is a catch'', meaning a complication, meaning the proof of the accusations.

[wannable]

He is a barrister in the UK
He explains it very well and is a member of lawyer.com

I recommend to watch and listen
Prince Harry's Case Proceeds, with a CATCH! - YouTube

[Curryong]

He is a barrister in the UK
He explains it very well and is a member of lawyer.com

I recommend to watch and listen
Prince Harry's Case Proceeds, with a CATCH! - YouTube

That barrister is English  and is an anti Sussex proponent. He has had a go at Meghan several times, and she has won her UK case.  And as far as Meghan vs Samantha is concerned, I listen and watch Emily Baker who is an American attorney and completely neutral and fair.

Samantha has had one attorney withdraw from the case, in April. She and the lawyer fundamentally disagreed on how to proceed. She and her team have had to twice amend her defamation case. If you think that looks good for her, we?ll, we will see.

[wannable]

You are dismissing a UK Barrister because he gives his opinion in his ''other'' youtube channel that is unrelated to his Lawyer channel, IOW his opinion about Oprah and racism, titles, branding. 

IF anyone has seen his ''other'' youtube video blackbelt barrister secrets, you would know he is very balanced (IOW really and truly watched it 100 percent ALL, I would know it immediately if one has lied or faked it), he does point out the multiple changes (from the couple) of retelling their story and/or the differences between the couple, so many versions by themselves. And he does it with proof from both the horses mouth.  That a fan does not like that to be pointed out is another story.

In his law channel, he shows the Judge's three page decision of trial and what is 'thrown out' and what can ''partially'' proceed with the ''catch''.  He is not inventing fake news like the press.  And yes, there is a huge catch not for Associated Press but for the Individuals who are the initiators of the hearing.  Watch and listen carefully to the link I posted, there is no two ways about it. It's in the court INK.

[Curryong]

You are dismissing a UK Barrister because he gives his opinion in his ''other'' youtube channel that is unrelated to his Lawyer channel, IOW his opinion about Oprah and racism, titles, branding. 

IF anyone has seen his ''other'' youtube video blackbelt barrister secrets, you would know he is very balanced (IOW really and truly watched it 100 percent ALL, I would know it immediately if one has lied or faked it), he does point out the multiple changes (from the couple) of retelling their story and/or the differences between the couple, so many versions by themselves. And he does it with proof from both the horses mouth.  That a fan does not like that to be pointed out is another story.

In his law channel, he shows the Judge's three page decision of trial and what is 'thrown out' and what can ''partially'' proceed with the ''catch''.  He is not inventing fake news like the press.  And yes, there is a huge catch not for Associated Press but for the Individuals who are the initiators of the hearing.  Watch and listen carefully to the link I posted, there is no two ways about it. It's in the court INK.

In other words he is anti Sussex and completely biased. I have watched him twice and have been unimpressed. I?m certainly not watching him ever again. He believed Meghan was going to lose her case against the Fail. Well, she didn?t. She won. Of course you think he?s balanced. He?s anti Harry and Meghan and so are you.

?Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled Friday the case can go forward, writing the claims ?have a real prospect of succeeding? and ?Associated has not been able to deliver a ?knockout blow? to the claims of any of these claimants,? as quoted by the Associated Press.?

You seem to think that judges are just ruling for Harry and the other litigants just for fun. If he felt there was no merit whatsoever in their case he would have ruled against them.

[wannable]

The couple biased themselves. That happens when you change your story several times.

[TLLK]

The conversation about Denmark's CP Frederik has been moved to the thread linked below.

The Danish Royal Family General News and Chat

[wannable]

The Duke of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers Limited - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Tommorow, then the 10th, 11th and the 12th December.

RE: Harry vs The Daily Mail for stating that Harry had not ''initially'' in any document stated he wanted to pay for taxpayer security.

[Nightowl]

And they think the UK is unsafe.............LOL........LOL!  Look where they are living, even in a protected community does anyone think they are 100% safe these days......California of all places.  Even  this city here, it is not safe, I still live my life yet times have  made me change the way I live it now. Harry is very delusional or is he using this as an excuse to get something else in the UK?   Yes, Charles, you and Diana did Harry no favors in spoiling him rotten......look what it produced today.

[wannable]

BREAKING: Prince Harry loses legal challenge in libel claim against Mail on Sunday

[Nightowl]

Don't  think he is a happy prince now, he did not get his own way which is a damn good thing. He really needs to learn about life as an ordinary human being as does his wife, Prince does not hold any value in with the ordinary people of the US.

[Curryong]

Late Queen wanted Prince Harry?s security to continue, letter reveals

Sir Edward Young, the Queen?s PS wrote to RAVEC explaining what had been decided between the Queen and her grandson at the Sandringham summit.

The late Queen Elizabeth II considered it ?imperative? that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex kept ?effective security? after leaving the working Royal family, court documents have revealed.

Her most senior aide told a Home Office committee that keeping the Sussexes safe was ?of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family? as he put forward a case for their continuing security, a letter has revealed.

Sir Edward Young wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill, the then Cabinet Secretary, after the Sandringham summit of January 2020 to explain what had been decided by the late Queen and her grandson.

The letter, included in newly published court documents, reveals how Sir Edward ? writing on behalf of the Palace in his role as the late Queen?s private secretary ? made the case for the Sussexes? continued ?effective security? as they left the working Royal family.

[TLLK]

I am sure thatvthe late Queen would want as many family members as possible to have full security,  but ultimately understood that it wasn't possible.  That is why  those closest to the situation cannot be the decision makers.

[Curryong]

I am sure thatvthe late Queen would want as many family members as possible to have full security,  but ultimately understood that it wasn't possible.  That is why  those closest to the situation cannot be the decision makers.

She wanted RAVEC and the Govt to know her wishes, however. Or Young would not have written to the Cabinet Sec expressing them.

[wannable]

It is never late for Harry to apologise to Sir Edward. How Youngheld his composure and tongue with the trashing plus seeing his boss die.

A doctor could testify H is not fit now though.

This letter was available to all interested parties.

[Curryong]

It is never late for Harry to apologise to Sir Edward. How Youngheld his composure and tongue with the trashing plus seeing his boss die.

A doctor could testify H is not fit now though.

This letter was available to all interested parties.

Sir Edward Young wrote to the Parliamentary Sec because he was obliged to. It was an agreement that had been formulated between all the royals at the ?Sandringham Summit.? The other senior royals had obviously agreed that Harry needed security. And so the Queen?s Private Secretary wrote the letter. His personal feelings towards Harry didn?t come into it. He was obliged, by his position at Court, to write that letter. A communication that states the Queen?s wishes about Harry?s security. If he had not done it he would have been obliged to resign.

Again I say, Sir Edward?s private feelings about the matter didn?t come into it. That however does not mean that he and other senior courtiers did not express negative feelings about the Sussexes to others at Court or that they did not act privately against the couple at times, allowing leaks to occur by others.
ReplyQuote

[wannable]

What are his 'personal feelings' ?

Harry personal feelings:

''The Bee''. The Duke of Sussex said Lord Young was known as ''The Bee'' thanks to his 'oval-faced and fuzzy' appearance and tendency to 'glide around with great equanimity and poise'. He added that the Private Secretary ?was so poised that people didn't fear him. Big mistake. Sometimes their last mistake.?

How many times did Harry bodyshame people in his book? for example. The above quote is the mildest, Harry went on and on...

Here's a dedicated goodbye article to Sir Edward Young
Sir Edward Young, the late Queen?s Private Secretary who riled Prince Harry, is made Permanent Lord in Waiting to King Charles | Tatler

[Curryong]

The judge did not say that Harry had lied about saying he was willing to pay when at the Sandringham Summit. And the judge has not seen the notes taken at the Sandringham Summit by Young or either of the others.

And no judge hearing a case before the courts in Britain can (discreetly or otherwise) ask anyone who is not appearing before them on oath any questions in reference to any case they are hearing, or indeed any case currently before UK courts. Or to provide any evidence of any kind without being on oath in a court setting. That would be completely against the law and his remit as judge and no judge or magistrate would ever do such a thing.