New Thread
Prince Harry loses application in Mirror phone-hacking trial
The Duke of Sussex?s lawyer made a bid to enter three new witness statements into evidence on Friday morning
The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal application in his phone-hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).
It comes just days after a judge denied the Duke?s application for a legal challenge in his separate legal case against the Home Office.
David Sherborne, the lawyer representing Prince Harry and several other claimants against MGN, made an application to enter three new witness statements into evidence on Friday morning.
He argued the evidence is ?important? and that there was ?good reason? why the statements had not been provided sooner.
Prince Harry loses application in Mirror phone-hacking trial (https://archive.ph/eegu8#selection-2367.0-2383.119)
Basically, to underestand why the Judge denied 3 more 'new' witnesses, is because it would take The Mirror a long time, more homework in looking for ''originators''. What I mentioned as a comment to both hearing's Harry team/Mirror team, the 300/297, conceding 3. By the way, I understand the file/archive of the Mirror (the work to go back decades and seek from which, where, what newspaper is very very thick.
^ As I said
Quote
Mr Justice Fancourt rejected the applications, saying it ''comes very late'' and requires a degree of investigation on the part of the defendant in order to be able to deal with it.
Prince Harry Could Lose Up to $20 Million if All His Lawsuits Fail?Lawyer
BY JACK ROYSTON ON 5/28/23 AT 3:00 AM EDT
Prince Harry's multiple lawsuits could cost millions even if he wins, but if he loses them all he could be left with a bill of up to $20 million, a lawyer told Newsweek.
The Duke of Sussex lost his first lawsuit on Tuesday, raising questions about the future of his remaining five cases. A High Court judge ruled he had no grounds to sue the U.K. Home Office over its decision that he could not pay privately to reinstate his police bodyguards. Harry was stripped of his Metropolitan Police security team after he stepped down as a working royal and has been campaigning to get them back.
But the case was just one of six that have been running at London's Royal Courts of Justice, which raises the prospect of an eye-watering legal bill should the rest collapse too.
Prince Harry's Legal Costs
Mark Stephens, a U.K.-based attorney at Howard Kennedy, told Newsweek Harry may be out of pocket even if he wins, but if he loses all the cases, the bill could be somewhere between $15 million and $20 million?more than the price of his California mansion.
"I think Harry has taken it upon himself to sponsor the London legal village, and as a lawyer I welcome that. Whether it's prudent is another matter," Stephens said.
He continued: "People are entitled to go to court, but whether he wins some or all of these cases he's going to come out net down because you never recover, even if you win, 100 percent of your costs.
Prince Harry Could Lose Up to $20 Million if All His Lawsuits Fail?Lawyer (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-lose-20-million-lawsuits-fail-daily-mail-police-security-sun-mirror-1802160)
Nile Gardiner
@NileGardiner
Breaking News: A Hearing on the @Heritage @OversightPR Prince Harry immigration records case will be held in Washington, DC Federal Court in front of a U.S. Federal Judge at 2.30 pm on Tuesday June 6 in Courtroom 17. The Hearing will be open to the press.
GB News
@GBNEWS
🚨 Watch Prince Harry in Court live on GB News from Monday.
👀 Prince Harry will be returning to London to give evidence in court trial over hacking.
And you won't have to miss a second of it!
🖥GB News on YouTube GBNews - YouTube (https://bit.ly/3vAYaw0)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fxmx2JQaMAA6xfx?format=jpg&name=small)
Harry is a no show
The Judge has told off his lawyers stating it is always anticipated that the witness should be here today and is still giving the Mirror two days (moved Tuesday and Wednesday) to cross examine Harry.
Harry's lawyers basically said H is 'on another level' (above the law); his daughter's birthday, a prince above everyone else in reference to transportation and security issues, these are the excuses given of his no show.
Twitter screenshot of 3 in 1 thanks to @tribesbritannia
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fx24Sn4aYAADCUq?format=jpg&name=small)
**On another level** and **above the law**.....could someone please explain that to me so that I can tell my lawyers to use that in court when confronting the ex..... :laugh10:.....think it will work .............. :laugh: :laugh:
Boy Harry needs a real *Awakening* as a human being even! He must think he is God now.
^ Ordinary people in social media are having a massive meltdown with this no show, from a. those who have been at a court, to b. lawyers saying what would have happened to a pauper, then the third group of people reading a. + b. spewing more disgust towards this privileged prince.
Instead of reading the thousands of comments, basically a no show means the court HAD 'served him with a summons' due to the fact about the 'anticipation' spoken by the Judge and Harry's lawyer and giving the defendant the Mirror Wednesday. IF he doesn't show up tomorrow he will be served a 'bench warrant', which is much more serious. From there, speculating further is not prudent, although it is happening in SM with questions of what if to lawyers replying, some of them I recognize from the UK website Lawyer.com
IOW for now, a pauper with a no show would have immediately been sought to serve him/her a 'bench warrant'.
The Times and The Sunday Times
@thetimes
A High Court judge said today he was ''surprised'' that Prince Harry had failed to appear in court to give evidence in his claim against a tabloid newspaper
Harry was ordered by the judge to attend the High Court in London in the expectation that he might start giving evidence in his case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror
Instead Harry flew from Los Angeles only on Sunday evening having spent the day celebrating the second birthday of Princess Lilibet at their home in California, the court was told
Mr Justice Fancourt, the trial judge, expressed his concern at the prince's failure to appear, saying:
🗣 ''I am a little surprised that [despite] the direction I gave . . . that the first witness [Harry] is not going to be available''
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harrys-absence-from-witness-box-surprises-high-court-judge-bq5jp53j8
Yes I can well believe that there have been thousands of negative comments on SM. There is nothing SM caters to more than allowing mobs of people to pile on criticism of those in the public eye they don?t know and have never met nor are likely to.
Judges aren?t swayed by social media comments however, so all these anonymous keyboard warriors spitting their bile might as well have done something else with their time.
The Judge was surprised and annoyed, hardly enraged, and chatter online of ?bench warrants? etc is just a load of over hyped nonsense, people don?t spend hours in aircraft to be in a city they don?t like very much in order to then disappear. However, I?m sure it?s got anti- Sussexes all fired up with glee. Hope they choke on it, actually, lol!
It's unfortunate, his lawyer could have given a better excuse.
I feel it's going to be a media and social media frenzy week because the three Harry points mentioned today in the last bit of the hearing is Diana, Chelsy and William. It was so fast, the court had 4 hours 'free' or wasted as the judge said because witness #1 was a no show. Note: Harry is blaming The Mirror for him losing the three above people from his life.
Quote from: wannable on June 05, 2023, 06:50:18 PM
^ Ordinary people in social media are having a massive meltdown with this no show, from a. those who have been at a court, to b. lawyers saying what would have happened to a pauper, then the third group of people reading a. + b. spewing more disgust towards this privileged prince.
Instead of reading the thousands of comments, basically a no show means the court HAD 'served him with a summons' due to the fact about the 'anticipation' spoken by the Judge and Harry's lawyer and giving the defendant the Mirror Wednesday. IF he doesn't show up tomorrow he will be served a 'bench warrant', which is much more serious. From there, speculating further is not prudent, although it is happening in SM with questions of what if to lawyers replying, some of them I recognize from the UK website Lawyer.com
IOW for now, a pauper with a no show would have immediately been sought to serve him/her a 'bench warrant'.
*Bench warrant*, this is not a good idea to dismiss a judge. Question: would the Bench Warrant be served in the US from an English judge or would the court wait till Harry was in England to serve it? Smart people do not ignore judges ever as they could land in jail, yet Harry has shown us that he is not that smart, he just thinks he is entitled amd above the law everywhere. Some lessons are hard to learn.
deleted post
deleted post
He's being slaughtered. I personally think today is enough, two days is a circus.
Quote
"I don't believe as a witness it's my job to construct the article or instruct which parts were unlawfully obtained or weren't, the journalist should be doing that," Harry says
^Immediately adjourned, lawyers and judge in a private meeting, until tomorrow.
For what it's worth, it IS Harry's job to construct, instruct which part were ''unlawful' as he is the plaintiff to the case, he is the accuser of The Mirror, hence he has to show the evidence of which part is unlawful. Will he withdraw?
Harry has accused the Mirror stating the Hewitt stories were planted to oust him from the BRF. He is in denial about the affair Hewwitt & Diana. The Mirror lawyer and the Judge look concerned by many of Harry's claims. This is one of example of many coming out today, no factual evidence, he is pouring out his feelings and his mental health illness. Basically in all the cross questioning Harry blames everyone for his issues.
Personally, I think it is sad to see Harry being butchered at the stand so IF I see any worthwhile development rather than much of the same same (His feelings rather than facts of proof), I'll comment.
I do not believe that people untrained in the law and British Court proceedings have much of an insight into what has happened today.
The ABC reporter, from our national broadcaster, doesn?t appear to believe Harry?s getting slaughtered, or even flustered, and their correspondent was present in Court.
Prince Harry testifies in court against Mirror Newspapers Group - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-06/prince-harry-testifies-mirror-newspapers-group/102447728)
?Looking serious and speaking firmly but quietly, Harry, the first senior British royal to give evidence for 130 years, said thousands if not millions of stories had been written about him?.?
^ Fluff piece with no key Questions & Answers happening live as reported by media people in the room.
*****
Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
Minor in the scheme of things, but odd no one proof reading the witness statement picked up that #PrinceHarry referred to his father as ''His Royal Highness'' King Charles, not His Majesty King Charles which you'd think someone who grew up in the Royal Family might know 🤔
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fx7ur8mXsAEuS47?format=jpg&name=small)
My last sample, and will comment IF Harry shows factual proof (tomorrow), as I said in one of my previous comment. IF tomorrow is same same rather than a real development in Harry's favor, then IMO why bother, just wait for the final verdict of it all. Note, I want Hary to get paid damages for the ''3'' points the Mirror claims is good for H, but not the 300 and so.
Matt Wilkinson
@MattSunRoyal
Harry claims a three-line story about him becoming parade commander at Eton cadets was gathered illegally. But Green reads out a press release issued by the palace 24 hours earlier announcing the role. Harry says it's ''suspicious''.
Asked if he still maintains the story was obtained illegally despite being shown the press release Harry says ''it's a question for my legal team''
(Request now made for short break)
Green points out that a quote in Mirror article he is claiming damages also appears in Times on same day and asks Harry if he would like to see it, Harry replied' ''probably not''. Green says ''I understand''
Green asks Harry if he continues to claim damages for two articles he replied ''based on legal advice I've been given''
Green has pointed out that quotes in an article Harry is seeking damages are identical to a quote given by his minder and gap year organiser Mark ''Marko'' Dyer to Australian press on same day.
Andrew Green KC, representing MGN, is essentially arguing that Harry was generally upset by press intrusion - but he can't point to particular articles that caused distress because many of them he probably didn't read at the time.
https://twitter.com/JasonFarrellSky/status/1666021173279305730?s=20 -
This guy is reporting for Sky
Yes, as I said it's more of ''feelings'' rather than factual proof. Harry subjective feelings of the media rather than the objective proof.
IMO as I said it doesn't need 2 days of grilling. Just pay him the 3 claims the Mirror agreed since a month ago and since 2012 when PW was paid 1 Million for 200 plus factual hackings. It seems to me Harry is angry his brother (and his wife) were hacked a gazillion times more than him. By the way it was reported a month ago the 300 plus people who accepted settlements were paid by the amount of times proved as factual hack by The News Of the World, which offered H the same, but since the amount wasn't equal to that of W, I recall H was offered around 150 to 250K rather than 1M. Harry was and still is :fuming:
A last sample, Harry said he was hacked since 1996, Green asked him (later) to prove Harry is...whatever you want to think of Harry's state of mind...when did you acquire your FIRST Cellphone, Harry 1998. :unsure:
And IMO and I'm sorry but that is why courts decide to do drug tests or not to witnesses if required, requested, etc by the defendants or by public petition. Drug addicts can't remember straight. Memories should come naturally rather than obstructed. I think Meghan is happy with the front page news, either way whatever happens she's the only winner here, can play it as she feels fit.
Other than Meghan is the only winner who can use all of Harry's doings however she sees fit. The lawyers are in for the money only IMO, what have they done to help Harry in his case, when every point has been proven differently.
He said he was hacked when he took Chelsy to Argentina, the Mirror group showed him a Argentinian national (citizen) who papped a picture of them at the Polo in Argentina and La Nacion newspaper reporting that the young couple are in their country assuming it would be a week or two for the entire duration of the 'polo matches', hence not only the Mirror but every media outlet reported what La Nacion reported with the same picture the 'next' day of the originator in Arg.
He said he was hacked when he went to South Africa to visit Chelsy by the Mirror Group, the Mirror showed Harry an interview the day before he flew to SA where Chelsy's Uncle made an interview stating that Harry is coming to SA to visit.
Between today and tomorrow, the Mirror will dispute the 33 articles that Harry and his team accused the Mirror of hacking. According to journos it will resume at lunch time, calculating that the Mirror will deliver to all parties the old out dated articles with how they got to know, roughly 20 down, 13 to go.
The BBC?s view of Harry?s demeanour and his day in Court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65827802
Based on the fact that he has admitted to be a drug addict, I will speculate his demeanor may have been medicated to be calm with a lot of ''I don't know'', ''that question is to my legal team'' and what not.
Lawyers for Biden administration try to keep Prince Harry's visa PRIVATE as think tank looks to speed up release of application and show whether he lied about taking drugs
The center-right Heritage Foundation had asked the Department of Homeland Security to start fast-tracking its freedom of information request
US bureaucrats repeatedly ignored their request, prompting the think tank to seek an injunction
Heritage wants to know if Prince Harry lied about his past drug use on his immigration forms
Lawyers for Biden administration try to keep Prince Harry's visa PRIVATE | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12166911/Lawyers-Biden-admininstration-tri-try-Prince-Harrys-visa-PRIVATE.html)
Harry admits Spare contradicts evidence at hacking trial - and tries to turn questions on lawyer | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12166105/Harry-admits-Spare-contradicts-evidence-hacking-trial-tries-turn-questions-lawyer.html)
JAN MOIR: After five hours of cross-examination one wonders if Prince Harry felt so buoyant | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12166937/JAN-MOIR-five-hours-cross-examination-one-wonders-Prince-Harry-felt-buoyant.html)
Prince Harry accuses Piers Morgan of 'personal attacks and intimidation' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12165529/Prince-Harry-accuses-Piers-Morgan-personal-attacks-intimidation.html)
Eight articles that cast doubt on Prince Harry's High Court case | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12167041/Eight-articles-cast-doubt-Prince-Harrys-High-Court-case.html)
If you think Harry's court case is a marmalade-dropper, read about great-great-great grandfather's! | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12166889/If-think-Harrys-court-case-marmalade-dropper-read-great-great-great-grandfathers.html)
Prince Harry accused of being 'in the realms of total speculation' at hacking trial | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12165259/Prince-Harry-accused-realms-total-speculation-hacking-trial.html)
Prince Harry says newspapers painted him as a 'thicko' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12165419/Prince-Harry-says-newspapers-painted-thicko.html)
Sherlock Holmes extra re-enacts Harry's court testimony on Sky News | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12166391/Viewers-left-baffled-Sky-recreates-Prince-Harrys-hacking-court-appearance-actor.html)
Prince Harry Says He'll Facetime with Meghan Markle, Kids After Court (https://people.com/prince-harry-facetime-meghan-markle-prince-archie-princess-lilibet-following-court-appearance-7508825)
Prince Harry's Witness Statement Has Mistake About Father King Charles (https://people.com/prince-harry-witness-statement-mistake-father-king-charles-title-7508719)
Prince Harry Takes Stand at London Court to Testify Against MGN (https://people.com/prince-harry-london-court-mirror-group-newspapers-7507823)
Why Prince Harry Hasn't Taken the Stand to Testify Against MGN Yet (https://people.com/prince-harry-take-stand-testify-mirror-group-newspapers-lawsuit-7508156)
Royal fans notice big royal mistake in Prince Harry's witness statement | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494787/royal-fans-notice-big-mistake-prince-harry-witness-statement/)
Prince Harry's bold statements during hacking trial - all the details | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494745/prince-harry-outside-london-high-court-photos/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65818521
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65827802
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65819707
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65822218
Prince Harry to resume evidence in hacking case after blaming tabloids for 'inciting hatred' | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-to-resume-evidence-in-hacking-case-after-blaming-tabloids-for-inciting-hatred-12897876)
Watch reconstructions of key moments from Prince Harry's first day in court | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/watch-reconstructions-of-key-moments-from-prince-harrys-first-day-in-court-12897806)
'I'll read about it in his next book' - Piers Morgan hits back at Prince Harry's criticism | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/ill-read-about-it-in-his-next-book-piers-morgan-hits-back-at-prince-harrys-criticism-12897617)
Prince Harry court case: Piers Morgan reacts to duke's accusations | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/video/prince-harry-court-case-piers-morgan-reacts-to-dukes-accusations-12897742)
US judge hears rightwing thinktank?s challenge over Prince Harry visa | US news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/06/us-judge-prince-harry-heritage-foundation-visa)
Britain?s government and press at rock bottom, Prince Harry tells court | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/06/prince-harry-tells-court-britains-government-and-press-at-rock-bottom)
Prince Harry's court attack on 'rock-bottom' government | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1778124/prince-harry-mgn-trial-witness-statement-rishi-sunak)
Prince Harry says tabloids 'want him to be single' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1778022/prince-harry-witness-statement-high-court-mgn)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-06/prince-harry-in-high-court-in-case-against-mirror-publisher
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-06/a-view-from-court-as-harry-takes-aim-at-vile-behaviour-of-tabloid-press
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-05/what-is-happening-with-harrys-six-high-court-claims
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-06/the-articles-harry-has-complained-about-in-court-case-vs-mirrors-publisher
Prince Harry denies high court claims are 'total speculation' as he takes the stand - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-denies-high-court-30166389)
Judge 'surprised' Prince Harry fails to attend High Court in phone hacking case - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-surprised-prince-harry-fails-30159968)
Piers Morgan takes huge swipe at Prince Harry's 'privacy campaign' after duke's High Court grilling | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22601525/piers-morgan-huge-swipe-prince-harry-high-court/)
Prince Harry was armed only with vague suspicions and his usual tedious grudges at High Court | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22602258/prince-harry-suspicions-grudges-court/)
Five inconsistencies in Prince Harry's testimony revealed as he repeatedly admits 'I don't know' in High Court grilling | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22599158/five-inconsistencies-in-prince-harrys/)
I'm a royal expert - Prince Harry isn't sharpest tool in shed but some of his testimony veered into total speculation | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22602028/royal-expert-prince-harry-court-testimony-total-speculation/)
So Piers Morgan has taken a swipe at Harry. So what else is new?
The Piers Morgan btw who has always denied that he knew anything at all about hacking, illegal information gathering, when he was editor of the Mirror. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell, lol.
The Piers Morgan who has almost daily blasted Harry and Meghan for something or other on his TV show and in articles in tabloids. That Piers Morgan. A Completely unbiased observer.
Harry will name their most critics, yesterday it was Morgan, today and so far Jobson. Probably next few hours Low and Bower.
I feel very sorry for MRS. Chelsy Davy, married, with a son.
Harry is totally obsessed with his one true love, yesterday MRS. Chelsy is mentioned 115 times and as I speak he STILL is talking about her, so the media in the room are counting MRS. Meghan 5.
Prince Harry is grilled over 'lap dance' at strip club during London phone hacking trial | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12169593/Prince-Harry-grilled-lap-dance-strip-club-London-phone-hacking-trial.html)
Prince Harry's phone hacking trial enters second day of duke's evidence | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12168089/Prince-Harrys-phone-hacking-trial-enters-second-day.html)
Prince Harry tells hacking trial he 'knows of' Omid Scobie | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12169741/Prince-Harry-tells-hacking-trial-knows-Omid-Scobie.html)
Piers Morgan reacts to Prince Harry's High Court hacking case | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12169261/Piers-Morgan-reacts-Prince-Harrys-High-Court-hacking-case.html)
Prince Harry Arrives at London Court for Second Day on Witness Stand (https://people.com/prince-harry-court-second-day-london-evidence-7509131)
Prince Harry confirms Meghan Markle hasn't joined him on UK trip | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494879/prince-harry-confirms-meghan-markle-not-in-uk-facetime/)
Prince Harry's emotional second day in court ? photos and details | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494843/prince-harry-court-day-two-photos-details/)
King Charles returns to London amid Prince Harry's court case | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494858/king-charles-returns-to-london-amid-harry-court-case/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-65832663
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-65818719
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65831289
Prince Harry in court: William's prank call, strip club visit, and Chelsy Davy break-up - duke faces more questions from Mirror publisher's lawyer | (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-in-court-williams-prank-call-strip-club-visit-and-chelsy-davy-break-up-duke-faces-more-questions-from-mirror-publishers-lawyer-12897975)
Who is Jane Kerr? Former Mirror royal editor giving evidence in Prince Harry court case | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-jane-kerr-former-mirror-royal-editor-giving-evidence-in-prince-harry-court-case-12897939)
Prince Harry has no proof Mirror Group journalists hacked phone, court told | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/07/prince-harry-has-no-proof-mirror-group-journalists-hacked-phone-court-told)
Prince Harry's answers on visa about drug use should be disclosed, US judge hears | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1778292/prince-harry-us-visa-court-drug-use)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-07/prince-harry-to-resume-evidence-at-high-court-in-hacking-claim
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-06/the-articles-harry-has-complained-about-in-court-case-vs-mirrors-publisher
https://www.itv.com/watch/news/duke-of-sussex-v-mirror-group-newspapers-what-is-the-trial-about/qn01pp5
I wish H lawyers go bankrupt.
IF H doesn't learn from these sharks, who led him into the wolves den, well....
He is confident he was hacked going to a stripper seedy nightclub due to the 'detailed' article, then the KC Green destroys Harry with a simple read the quotes in plural from the STRIPPER. Like who do you think leaked the news.
Prince Harry says he 'would feel injustice' if judge finds phones were not hacked - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-says-would-feel-30176694)
Prince Harry breaks down after admitting 'I don't know' 18 times in three hours as he stumbles in High Court grilling | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22608947/prince-harry-breaks-down-high-court/)
Prince Harry chokes back tears while being questioned over his bombshell case and admits 'it's a lot' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22603660/prince-harry-set-for-another-bombshell-day/)
Prince Harry in court latest: I brought hacking case to stop hate against Meghan - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65767193)
Summary
Prince Harry has given evidence for a second day at the High Court, as part of his hacking case against the Daily Mirror publisher
He says he took the case against Mirror Group Newspapers to stop "hate" towards his wife Meghan
Earlier, he told the court he once found a tracking device on the car of his ex-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy
And he questioned how photographers knew he was meeting the late TV star Caroline Flack for dinner in 2009
The Mirror's ex-royal editor was also questioned - she said she can't recall her sources for four of her 10 stories featured in this case
The Mirror denies unlawful methods - and says the stories were obtained through legitimate sources.
Harry has 33 shots - and only one must hit the back of the net
Dominic Casciani
Legal correspondent, reporting from court
While so much of Prince Harry's case comes down to circumstantial evidence (because he alleges direct proof was destroyed) there's a very simple way to look at his chances: he's got 33 of them.
That's the number of sample newspaper articles he's linking to unlawful intrusion into his life.
Think of them as 33 balls at the penalty spot. The Mirror has to save them all.
If just one makes the back of the net, the prince can declare he was a proven victim and he wins at least part of the case.
All of this predates Meghan by many years. It's also predates the Levinson inquiry. Meghan hasn't been hounded or hacked. Hounded is Kate on her 25th birthday. Once again, at least to me, it seems Harry just doesn't like negative coverage or fair comment.
He is also predated in compensation.
I posted in the defunct Sussex Board/Legal thread the UK GOV LEVENSON Guidance and Regulations, which included deadline date to receive compensation (6 years ago deadline). Now, IF the Judge decides to favor him, that will also bring ''new'' discussions with the UK GOV to open the guidance and regulations to 'new' people who wish to demand 'hacking'.
The 'he is doing this for Meghan' ^ as you said is also predated, IF he wants to have a 'media' fight, his best possible would be with the Mark Zuckerberg's of the world who lie in bed with governments and famous people to hide and/or disinform (the real news) to worldwide citizens. Mark has just been bombarded for the past 6 months - Facebook, Instagram, other owners of i.e. ChatGP for disinformation/misinformation because Elon purchased Twitter and released what the previous owner/management lied with Gov (USA and troubled countries) and 'famous people' too. I say this as an educated guess/learned, because the UK GOV has already in place the guidance and regulations due to Hacking, which has the name of that Judge ''Levenson''. The new worldwide problem is Social Media owners who are in bed with X, get paid or have the same idiology with someone - a political or social influencer - then they HIDE the real news. Social Media guidance and regulations do not exist, only what each app rules decide to put in their app for users/memebers.
The BBC article is worded sympathetic with H vs the rest of the UK media who posted his statement and then proceeded to give a critical opinion about him, Meghan and Elton John.
I'm not a defender of the tabloids. I just don't think he's going to get any satisfaction. He should have settled and moved on. To make this into an almost evangelical crusade is going to drive him insane imo.
There is no need in the UK to be pro or con with 'tabloids' because there are guidance and regulations in place. IF anyone had an actual hacking case, the person only needs to give it to the police and it will be HM Gov vs x media. Fact.
If Harry had any evidence of any of the 33, the court gives the evidence to the police to investigate, then the police writes their investigation and the most important part, the 'conclusion'. The conclusion in favor or not will be sent back to the court, boom. That is why KC Green asked Harry yesterday 'do you have the list of the hacked phones of the News of The World, that WAS the last hackings and based on all the investigation, etc, etc etc. the new Guidance and Regulations came into force in the UK.
DAN WOOTTON: Why is Meghan Markle not telling Prince Harry he's making a fool of himself? | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12175045/DAN-WOOTTON-Meghan-Markle-not-telling-Prince-Harry-hes-making-fool-himself.html)
Piers Morgan 'injected' snippets of information into royal stories, Harry's hacking trial hears | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12174561/Piers-Morgan-injected-snippets-information-royal-stories-Harrys-hacking-trial-hears.html)
Prince Harry tells High Court judge he is not aware of ANY evidence he was hacked by the Mirror | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12171325/Barrister-aware-evidence-hacking-Prince-Harry-No.html)
Charles Spencer Shares Supportive Messages for Prince Harry Amid Court Case (https://people.com/charles-spencer-tweets-support-prince-harry-amid-court-case-against-mirror-group-newspapers-7509407)
Why is Prince Harry not at the High Court today? | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494957/prince-harry-not-in-high-court-thursday/)
Charles Spencer hits out at comment on Prince Harry's 'obsession' with ex Chelsy Davy | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/494936/earl-charles-spencer-responds-comment-prince-harry-ex-chelsy-davy/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65842950
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65838056
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65838634
Prince Harry court case - latest: Newspaper 'wrongly' suggested Coronation Street star Nikki Sanderson had affair with Manchester United footballer | (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-trial-latest-updates-high-court-princess-diana-piers-morgan-mirror-william-12881275)
Sky News Explains: Prince Harry hacking court case | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/video/sky-news-explains-prince-harry-hacking-court-case-12898423)
Prince Harry court case: Ex-Mirror royal reporter Jane Kerr quizzed on private conversation between William and Duke of Sussex | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-court-case-ex-mirror-royal-reporter-jane-kerr-quizzed-on-private-conversation-between-william-and-duke-of-sussex-12898641)
Prince Harry reveals how he speaks with Meghan and children while in UK | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1778162/royal-family-live-king-charles-abdicate-prince-william-poll)
Seven most explosive Prince Harry bombshells revealed after royal grilled in court from ?car chase? to lap dance | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22618303/seven-most-explosive-prince-harry-bombshells/)
Prince Harry admits encounter with stripper at London lap dance club in revealing court testimony | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22614860/prince-harry-strip-club-court/)
Prince Harry's five MORE inconsistencies revealed as emotional duke struggles to answer questions over his own claims | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22611126/prince-harrys-five-more-inconsistencies/)
Seems like a lot of effort on Harry's part with potentially little in return.
^^ (several of the linked articles) Charles Spencer seems to be another me me me and only me person defending his nephew Harry, despite all the trash and junk he's done in the past three years.
From The Telegraph
Quote
How does he square his gallant protection of one woman with his willingness to throw another to the wolves, and indeed to the tabloids? Pity Chelsy Davy, the Chandleresque blonde whose youthful dalliance with Harry is now known to people who weren?t even born when it happened. Was it right to drag her name into court?
Davy is married, and has a young child. Did it not occur to Harry, who feels every prick of life like a dagger, that revisiting the flora of their affair might distress this blameless person who, unlike Meghan, backed out of the strobe lights? Did he even bother to consult her before he sued?
According to a Davy family friend, he did not.
Quote from: wannable on June 08, 2023, 10:14:55 PM
^^ (several of the linked articles) Charles Spencer seems to be another me me me and only me person defending his nephew Harry, despite all the trash and junk he's done in the past three years.
From The Telegraph
Where is the link to the actual Telegraph article?
Quote from: wannable on June 08, 2023, 03:05:23 PM
There is no need in the UK to be pro or con with 'tabloids' because there are guidance and regulations in place. IF anyone had an actual hacking case, the person only needs to give it to the police and it will be HM Gov vs x media. Fact.
If Harry had any evidence of any of the 33, the court gives the evidence to the police to investigate, then the police writes their investigation and the most important part, the 'conclusion'. The conclusion in favor or not will be sent back to the court, boom. That is why KC Green asked Harry yesterday 'do you have the list of the hacked phones of the News of The World, that WAS the last hackings and based on all the investigation, etc, etc etc. the new Guidance and Regulations came into force in the UK.
Tell that to Dame Doreen Lawrence whose son was murdered and who is now a complainant against the DM along with Elton John, Harry and several others, and appeared with him and the others to observe in March.
And it is not HM Govt which prosecutes cases in criminal courts. It?s the Crown. A subtle difference but nevertheless a real one.
As for the Leveson Inquiry the original plan was for the Levenson Inq to take place in phases. IIRC acts by the now defunct News of the World (NOTW) were reviewed as part of Levenson and/or other proceedings but there were also allegations involving other media organizations like The Sun, Daily Mail and The Mirror and they were to be examined IN A LATER PHASE.
IIRC over 200 people, celebrities and non-celebrities, were alleged to have been possible victims of phone hacking / illegal gathering of information.
The media organisations and Barons lobbied hard to not have subsequent phases of Levenson happen, and if IIRC, the six year rule that's been referred to, also came about from the media bosses lobbying in their own self-interest.
If I am correct and I believe I am,, the six year rule is not established law, rather it stems from media organizations' successful effort to not have allegations against them adjudicated via the Levenson Inquiry and also to limit the time that their accusers have to bring action against them, despite the fact that some of their victims may not know at all, or indeed not know the extent to which that information reported about them was obtained illegally.
Interesting tweets from Charles Spencer to Amanda Platell, pointing out a few things.
Charles Spencer Shares Supportive Messages for Prince Harry Amid Court Case (https://people.com/charles-spencer-tweets-support-prince-harry-amid-court-case-against-mirror-group-newspapers-7509407)
Such as the fact that the columnist Amanda Platell, who had been carrying on about Meghan being jealous lol of Chelsy Davy being mentioned in court by Harry so many times, that in fact the DM columnist had been found guilty previously of libelling Earl Spencer and her tabloid bosses had agreed to pay up rather than defend their lying employee, Ms Platell. That?s right Charles, hit them in their non existent credibility!
And also Spencer?s answer to an observer who must have been blind, deaf and dumb for the last thirty five years asking to be pointed to any instances of Press hacking. The Earl pointed to the millions paid by newspaper groups. I believe it?s about a billion pounds in payouts up to 2023 that the Murdoch Group has been shelling out for, as people being hacked found out and complained.
Princess Diana's Brother Shows Support For Prince Harry Amid Phone Hacking Trial (https://www.ibtimes.com/princess-dianas-brother-shows-support-prince-harry-amid-phone-hacking-trial-3698484)
?In 2017, Mirror Group allegedly agreed to pay "tens of millions" of dollars to dozens of phone hacking victims who settled their claims for damages, The Telegraph reported. The victims who allegedly had their private conversations and messages hacked by journalists reportedly included Lord Archer and his wife Dame Mary, ex-England soccer team manager Kevin Keegan and actress Patsy Kensit.?
They lost their key witness Gavin who was paid by notw to hack.
The data list was posted yesterday in Twitter. The data list was found by police at the offices of notw.
H lawyers edited an old document like if Gavin had agreed he had hacked for the mirror so he is out. Not in the witness list.
Charles is disappointing. No consideration for Chelsy. Who was not even asked.
Currying I will send you a DM to teach you how to search in the worldwide web how to get the pay per pay telegraph article.
^ When I write like this, IPhone (walking and at the park with the doggies).
To further expand of H lost key witness, months ago he said the document of H lawyers is fake, it was reported by the UK mass media, the lawyers took him out of the Witness list.
Yesterday late afternoon/early evening, Gavin via his twitter account made serious accusations of Harry. We have to wait and see the development of this new serious accusations. He straightforward directly accused Harry of calling the paparazzi as early as turning age 18 to show up at places (like Diana). The accusation is so grave, this Gavin person may be sued OR he want's to be sued to show his proof?!
In reference to Levenson, search in the old legal thread, I posted the UK GOV official version of it. In that 50plus page pdf document, one can learn what and how, and legislative resolutions from then forward. Hence my previous comments in this new iffy wiff legal thread that IF the Judge favors Harry, it WILL open possibly and very likely NEW resolutions. What could possibly be a new resolution the word 'source (s)'. In the UK (and USA) journalists do not have to mention who their source (s) is/are, to date it is to keep the source private, not be targeted. Whistleblower who is not public person, it could be anyone from a janitor to a manager of a 'place', a citizen walking in a park, saw something and so on, it could be a neighbour hearing yelling, it could be many possibilities, like what KC Green showed H, an old email of a Chelsy friend offering info...bubbles?
Still predicting total disaster for Harry in his legal cases I see. That?s not the verdict of many of the legal experts on these hacking cases. And the tabloids have been paying out big to their victims for years anyway.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65838056
Prince Harry survives his high Wire Act, and appeared relaxed and chatty with his lawyers, even joking about having FaceTime with Meghan and his children.
?When some of these stories were being published 20 years ago, the Daily Mirror was selling 2 million copies a day, while the most recent ABC circulation figures show sales of about 280,000.? End Quote.
Good. The sooner more of these vile tabloid monstrosities go into history the better. The Express is probably next to fade into obscurity.
My guess is that Harry has probably been staying with Elton John and his family in London.
We will have to wait and see the new developments or the Judge's outcome, some lawyers say in 2 weeks, others say in September.
Harry's court crusade will define him. And it?ll never end
The Duke of Sussex is on a mission and nothing will deter him from pursuing it, writes Roya Nikkhah
Roya Nikkhah
Royal Editor
Sunday June 11 2023, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times
From Jack Royston -
"Prince Harry told a judge that a tabloid story about him having glandular fever led to him being "teased endlessly" at school, but he has revealed private details about members of his family, including his niece Princess Charlotte, in his best-selling book." -
Basically an article saying Harry doesn't mind sharing private details of others when it suits him -
Prince Harry's Media Broadside Damns His Own Book (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-media-broadside-damns-book-spare-phone-hacking-lawsuit-1805199)
Quote from: wannable on June 11, 2023, 03:22:49 PM
Harry's court crusade will define him. And it?ll never end
The Duke of Sussex is on a mission and nothing will deter him from pursuing it, writes Roya Nikkhah
Roya Nikkhah
Royal Editor
Sunday June 11 2023, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times
This will be Harry's life work, this will go on forever mow as he will be defined by it. So we all can sit back and watch for the next book, chapter, interview, or TV show.........popcorn is ready!
All those media broadsides for Harry?- from journalists employed by newspaper conglomerates that he is suing, and therefore are completely unbiased, lol. There has been enough dirty fish come out in various testimonies so far, however, to show just what these newspaper editors and their minions were and are capable of, and yes that includes people like Piers Morgan.
Both sides be damned, there is enough blame on every party involved to be criticized regardless of who they are be an editor or a royal prince...Harry is not blameless in all this as he has shown us his true colors....lying about being married 3 days before the wedding (Yes Meghan) and making fun of a disabled woman in her mid years, give me a break...I will say, yes the media was cruel to the Sussex's as the media was cruel to all the royal women HM, Camilla, Sophie and Catherine, (and I am sure there are others also) regardless of who they were. Some dealt with it by being tough and not giving into the media and some ran away afraid to just turn your back and not give in to the media, regardless of who is right or wrong or who did what, the media needs to learn to not over step the boundaries of decency, common sense and honesty. Making up lies (Harry, Meghan and the Media, and the royal family) all to gain wealth does not support the country or the people, money has become the God of certain people and that brouds disaster for all.
What are the 'dirty fish', links please? So far the The Mirror KC Green has refuted H's claims. IF IF IF there were any dirty fish, the worldwide media would have it as huge headlines and top top front page news, but it didn't happen.
Also links please to Charles entering the scene in the Sussex Team Legal actions thread.
Quote from: wannable on June 12, 2023, 01:59:50 PM
Harry in his legal action 100% blamed the press, 0% the palace
But yeah all his grievances is 100% everyone else, he is perfect.
Mentioning Charles in this team Sussex legal action is a fantasy. Harry did not blame his father in any of the 33 articles. The 33 articles by the defence was proved taken from originator (other media outlets) or Harry's own press secretary. Harry said under oath that the palace operates to protect him, hence he finds the media suspicious.
Note: I am only asking links and what not, because I am requested to do so, but have noted others aren't required, there's a double standard including posting personal fan comments from social media. Remember, Curryong complained about a personal fan comment I had posted months ago, it was taken down. To be honest I don't care, I'm not petty, but am putting this note for ''awareness''.
A big *Thank You*!
^It's nothing, anyway thank you. Awareness has many reaches to be honest. IF one is in agreement with a fan who has posted their thoughts, why am I going to plagiarize rather than just post it and say I agree with this person rather than complain with a 'oh so now resorting to', then be warned by a free of charge no salary RIF worker whom time is then wasted, has to make a rule, only for someone to be quiet about it when it has to do with a favorite?!
With the Sussexes 1 hour a week of work (IRS tax filled out by them or their employee accountant stating in a government form 40, 30 or other, other 1 hour a week), I don't see why anyone should complain about posting all possible things done by them, their employees or their fan base. For real, hence I said 'thank you' in their team Sussex. IF I ever use it as an example when complaints are done to a working royal, it is just an example to open ones eyes with the charge of intent/whatever is the intent to a RIF member.
Just a further reflexion, just in case I'm not clear enough :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower:
Prince Harry's unique role does not exempt him from burden of truth, says Mirror (https://archive.is/42qAw)
QuoteThe Duke of Sussex?s ?unique role? in public life does not exempt him from the burden of proof, the Mirror newspaper has argued as its phone hacking case comes to a close.
In closing submissions, the tabloid said it was impossible not to have ?enormous sympathy? for Prince Harry given the media intrusion he has been subjected to throughout his life.
However, it said he had failed to identify any examples of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering at its newspapers.
And it accused him of bringing the litigation ?as a vehicle to seek to reform the British media? as part of his ongoing crusade.
The Duke sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, citing 148 articles he alleged had been obtained illegally.
Judge tells Prince Harry's lawyer to ''show me the evidence''
A judge has told the Duke of Sussex's lawyer to ''show me the evidence'' instead of making claims in his lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).
Mr Justice Fancourt, presiding over the case, made the comments while listening to the Duke of Sussex?s barrister give his closing speech on Wednesday.
He told David Sherborne, representing the Duke and three other high-profile claimants, to ''show me the evidence, not just assertions by you'' of particular examples of voicemail interception in the Duke's case.
By India McTaggart,
ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
28 June 2023 ? 2:41pm
The Telegraph
I hope Harry has evidence.
The Mirror did state in the early proceedings an apology for 1 nightclub account.
^ The above is the ''closing'' of the hearings, the Judge requested H lawyers to show evidence. None. Anyway I'm very curious for the outcome, only because of Tom Bower's statement. The royals never lose.
The Times and The Sunday Times
@thetimes
The Duke of Sussex's lawyers used a convicted phone hacker who paid private detectives to give evidence, the high court has been told.
Andrew Green KC, representing Mirror Group Newspapers, highlighted the ''extremely close collaboration'' between Harry's legal team and convicted hackers Graham Johnson and Dan Evans, who both gave evidence on behalf of Harry.
Both disgraced journalists were involved in strategy meetings and commenting on witness statements used in the case.
Johnson offered private investigators cash and book and film deals if they gave evidence on behalf of celebrities, the court was told. He was accused on Wednesday of fishing for potential claimants using his website, Byline Investigates, for which Evans also write.
Green said it was ''extraordinary'' that Johnson persuaded private investigators used by newspapers to give evidence on behalf of the celebrities by promising them ''pretty large sums of money''.
David Brown
Chief News Correspondent at
The Times
^ The Judge will consider the ''reliability'' of these two men paying witnesses.
The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with privacy claims against Associated Newspapers, after a judge's ruling opened the way for a trial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67122719?at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=6C3CF7CE-7FB2-11EE-AA58-3B0A423A1DFE&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_format=link&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_medium=social&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
Prince Harry security case will mostly be heard behind closed doors at the High Court, judge rules (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/04/duke-sussex-prince-harry-security-case-behind-closed-doors/)
The article is open from their pay per view scheme.
It's a three day trial Harry vs His Majesty's Home Office to determine if Harry will have or not taxpayer security. Note: The other item, he paying public security has already been determined, Harry lost that case.
For what it's worth, he will end up paying private security (with taiser) like all the ''other non working royals''.
If he wins, the 'other' working royals that have public security ''when working only'' and the 'other' non working royals will request it too.
The lawyers of Harry said he went airport coronation airport because bodyguards were not being provided in Buckingham after party.
Version 1 Archie birthday is out
No comments? What was said in a court of law, under oath supercedes the couple and their team Sussex soap opera drama version 1.0 that Harry is/was going to go at lightning speed to the Coronation to be back ASAP to his son's birthday.
Nobody is suprised with the versions though. But this one IS under oath.
Matt Wilkinson
@MattSunRoyal
Full story: The UK is my home and I was "forced" to leave, Harry says in High Court security battle
(Although, in their exit statement in January 2020 he and Meghan wrote "we have 'chosen' to make a transition")
The UK is my home and I was forced to leave, Prince Harry says as he wages battle over his security | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/24979844/uk-home-prince-harry-security/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarweb)
Version 2.0 Forced to leave
Version 1.0 Half in/Half out
The truth: the couple were planning to leave since before the wedding May 2018, source: facts of registrations in the USA, facts of conversations with TV stations and agents to sign tell all contracts. Let's go ''commercial''.
''It was with great sadness to both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020''.
^Too much mushroom, drugs, halucination tea, whatever - his very public Version 1.0 They both trashed the ''job'', he saying he was forced to work, behind the scenes, the multiple hats, forced travel to places he didn't want to go. She mocked and played the victim card to what the constitutional monarchy IS.
Blah blah blah.
His real target is IPP status. Period.
THE LAST ABOVE STORY IS H Final plea - closing story to try to pull heart strings and what not/convince the Judge.
Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
The Duke of Sussex's case against the Home Office over his security arrangements in the UK has just finished.
The judge, Mr Justice Lane, has reserved his decision - which means he goes away and announces it at a future date.
The Sussexsquad is beside themselves.
Before: with all the muscle 💪🏻 that Harry and Meghan trashing the Constitutional Monarchy, cheering their ''independence' of making fake millions (millions cut in half or less for not complying contracts - that is done done done - no new contracts - it's over).
Today: forget the muscle, it did not exist. :teehee: The SS is deploying deep state dislike against the very same monarchy they were previously cheering the Sussexes they had left, they don't need them. They DO need them.
Source: Thanks to Audrey Forbes Hamilton, X who has kept all the original receipts before the Sussexes morphed it all.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAwLHYVXYAAR6rA?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAwLHYVX0AAZEXi?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAwaBI_XEAAbLHc?format=jpg&name=small)
Just wonder what he thinks of that so called *freedom flight* right now since he so wants back in the royal family or else that is all LIES made up by his staff.
He thinks about it, went through all the trouble to be 'free'. The ''at the moment'' phrase from his final court statement could have been unconsciously written as an innocent mistake of Montecito is temporary. ( The U.K. is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the United States) By the way his statement hasn't been changed by any media. It is ''implicit'' - HMQEII was the only official monarch and statement about his situation. The statements went worldwide, if the implicitly is not understood with H court statement, I'll leave it to someone else to detail explain Megxit vs the Queen's statements.
This following (my) opinion comes with heavy lawyer.com opinions I have been reading yesterday to today. His real target is IPP status. IF he wins public funded police security in the UK, the next step is to have his lawyers fight and expand it worldwide. International Protected Person basically is immune to the common man - civil law. He would be above the law. The only way to actively lose a IPP is to do something really bad or break the law and get caught in the 'act' or retired from IPP by a power through courts in the UK.
Political opinion from both Tory and Labour - H has to lose. Main reason: The Republican anti monarchist will have an advantage if H wins, the campaign to get rid of the Monarchy will intensify due to the freebie HM Justice system gave him paid by the taxpayer. Russia, China, Iran will be sponsoring the republican sentiment.
Note: I had placed the Harry Vs ANL (re: paying private security) here because I thought okay ''Daily Fail'', H will win.
It turns out the Judge did not do a ''summary judgment'' as H requested and there will be a court case, which in the judicial link I posted the Judge is recommending also for H to reach a settlement with the Daily Fail, simply the Daily Fail provided sufficient evidence that H lied in reference to having told a Sandringham Summit that he was willing to pay. False. As simple as the ANL or the Judge can discretely ask the 3 senior (1 for each - QEII, Charles, William) staff members and 2 royals Charles and William, plus it's apparent the minutes taken by the 3 men = 5 if it is true, it's a lie.
So after saying that, Admin/Mods, you can if you wish move it to the iffy wiffy. H has been caught, his lawyer committed perjury. It will be stated this coming 10th of Dec or settle it to not go to court.
Harry's see-through public and notorious
He has a problem vocally and by ink stated towards Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine (latest the late Queen Elizabeth II by associating her most senior staff member)
He has a problem by ink stated towards the late Queen Elizabeth II Private Secretary, Sir Edward Young which Harry's code name for him is The Bee
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now King Charles III Private Secretary, Clive Alderton which Harry's code name for him is The Wasp
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now Prince of Wales Private Secretary, Simon Case which Harry's code name for him is The Fly.
Once a court of law USES as a precedent a happening that is public and notorious - it can be used IF a claimant changes his/her stance in a public and notorious happening.
The above is way to obvious that he has a problem with 'authority'. His superiors and by association too.
Quote from: wannable on December 10, 2023, 02:14:08 PM
Harry's see-through public and notorious
He has a problem vocally and by ink stated towards Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine (latest the late Queen Elizabeth II by associating her most senior staff member)
He has a problem by ink stated towards the late Queen Elizabeth II Private Secretary, Sir Edward Young which Harry's code name for him is The Bee
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now King Charles III Private Secretary, Clive Alderton which Harry's code name for him is The Wasp
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now Prince of Wales Private Secretary, Simon Case which Harry's code name for him is The Fly.
Once a court of law USES as a precedent a happening that is public and notorious - it can be used IF a claimant changes his/her stance in a public and notorious happening.
The above is way to obvious that he has a problem with 'authority'. His superiors and by association too.
If an official blocked me from seeing my own grandmother for a meeting that had been long arranged with lies about her diary being full up for three weeks then I would be angry too. And that was the Fly?s doing. The Queen confirmed it by phone. If it had been me I would have gone to see her anyway and gone into the room where the
Queen was. What would Young have done, manhandled me out of the way, lol!
And I don?t understand the bit of your post that talks about? a precedent that is public and notorious? and ?notorious happening?. That makes no sense in the English language, sorry, and none in English law. As I stated, no judge would be able to privately question anyone, royals, staff, anyone, about any matter unless they are giving evidence in the witness box in a court of law. And that won?t be happening.
So the Queen ordered it after finding out the reality about being blindsided
I cannot help you if you do not know when a situation is public and notorious
My own personal sense is that if the Queen had really wanted to meet with Harry, then she would have met with Harry. In spite of what the Sussexes insinuated, QEll seemed to be sharp as a tack and in full control right up til the end. If any of her staff had blatantly disregarded her wishes, particularly about something like seeing a family member, I doubt that they would have stayed in her favor for long.
It is possible to love someone dearly, and still decide you need a break from dealing with them, especially if that person has a difficult personality.
Currong's point is that Harry and Meghan had a long 'arranged' meeting with the Queen. I suppose this point is based on Harry's account, which he stated several times.
Wannable's point is that the alleged long 'arranged' meeting was cancelled by the Queen, as she was ''blindsided'' by Harry and Meghan. The ''Timeline'' is supported by 1. Late November 2019 their Canada long holiday, 2. Arrival at England 6th January 2020 (where they allegedly wanted to go straight to Sandringham for their alleged long arranged meeting) 3. 8th January 2020 they announce they are stepping down via Instagram and at the same date/time their sussexroyal.com announces their plan and take for granted senior working royal ''perks''. 4 and onward - it's available in all languages in the world wide web at least until April 2020 when Canada first announced they won't keep on paying for security, followed by the UK, followed by Trump's comment of nay.
I also take into consideration that the couple have taken aim from big to small people. In the Harry claim of Sir Edward Young, H accuses him of blocking access to his Boss, so IT IS implicit that the Boss doesn't want to see him date/time but as we know at the Sandringham Summit. In hindsight, the decision to not see his grandson was correct, taking into account of that hindsight that both Harry and Meghan would have commercialized the meeting with the Queen.
In a separate comment I can detail 'technical' parts of being 'blindsided' like if one works for Mi5, a simple detail is the website; sussexroyal was created March 2019 (1 year and 2 months before the 8th January launch and stepping down), the Toronto based webmaster is the same company for Meghan's The Tig.
Those technical aspects are the 'footprint' 'the DNA' of movement or gotcha in an investigation. It could have easily been anyone in the webmaster (page) company that whistleblowed the 'content' of the page which was being created. Basically a gold mine of gossip reading 'we are leaving' months before it happened.
BREAKING: Prince Harry has been ordered to pay nearly 50,000 pounds to The Mail on Sunday, after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the paper's defence in a libel case.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1734233925273166312?s=20
As I said, the public and notorious bit, the quote I posted from the Judiciary official website wasn't the only quote, there is approximately as I counted at least 10 quotes that the Judge mentioned since Sandringham Summit in reference to ''security'' of what Harry had said since, or Harry's team had said since or a past case that was still being recorded but verbally only the parties knew, so someone called and leaked it to...Even Omid Scobie made it in the Judge's numbering and lettering. Could it be more see through?
Prince Harry ordered to pay Mail on Sunday nearly ?50,000 after losing attempt to strike out part of paper's defence in libel case | UK News | Sky (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-ordered-to-pay-mail-on-sunday-nearly-50-000-after-losing-attempt-to-strike-out-part-of-papers-defence-in-libel-case-13028178)
Prince Harry ordered to pay over ?48,000 to Mail on Sunday over libel cases | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1844360/prince-harry-pay-mail-on-sunday)
Prince Harry told to pay newspaper's ?50k costs after losing round of libel court battle - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-harry-ordered-pay-newspapers-31649207)
Prince Harry ordered to pay newspaper nearly ?50,000 after losing libel case fight | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25016478/prince-harry-libel-mail-on-sunday/)
Prince Harry is ordered to pay publisher of the Mail almost ?50,000 after he lost latest stage of legal battle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12851423/Prince-Harry-ordered-pay-publisher-Mail-lost-latest-stage-legal-battle.html)
In USA is $62,000 in UK pounds is 50,000
There are about five (5) Sussex cases running, or 10...vexatious litigant. :blush:
This one is one of the two hacking cases Prince Harry (others) vs Mirror Group. This Friday he will know if he's been successful.
Britain's Prince Harry will find out on Friday (15th December) whether he has won his phone-hacking lawsuit against publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)
You searched for mgn - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=mgn&judgment_type=&jurisdiction=&post_type=judgment&order=relevance&after-day=&after-month=&after-year=&before-day=&before-month=&before-year=) I haven't had the time to read the several PDF to know which of the litigations will be decided this Friday, but it is 1/3 files. :lol:
Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers
The Duke of Sussex Prince Harry won 15 out of 33 claims after taking High Court action against the Mirror's publisher for damages after claiming its newspapers were linked to unlawful information gathering
Prince Harry has won in just under half of his claims of unlawful information gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a High Court ruling today.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its titles the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
MGN denied 28 out of the 33 historical articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.
Mr Justice Fancourt gave his ruling this morning in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims. He will be awarded GBP140,600 in damages, just under a third of the GBP 443,000 he'd asked for.
His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by three others, including actor Michael Turner, aka Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Mr Turner on 4 of his 27 claims, awarding him GBP31,650 in damages.
Claims brought by actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were dismissed because they were made too late.
In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: ''I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.
''I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).
"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.''
Mr Justice Fancourt continued: ''I have accordingly awarded the duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.
''I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the press towards the duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.''
An MGN spokesperson said after the ruling: ''We welcome today's judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.''
The high-profile trial ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. Many other witnesses also submitted written testimony to the trial, such as the friends, family and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher.
Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world's media. MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any newspaper articles complained of resulted from phone hacking, while contending that the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.
The Duke has been involved in five cases at the High Court, including similar claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). His civil litigation also features a challenge against the Home Office over the provision of his personal security and the linked libel claim against ANL.
Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-high-court-mirror-31679625)
You need a score card to keep track of all Harry's lawsuits I would think. He really won't get 140.000 as he has to pay that other lawsuit that he lost, the Mail I think. Is that enough to pay all the lawyers fees as they are not cheap at all. My fee as a certified paralegal was $150.00 an hour and believe me I did not make any where near $150.00 an hour. This is chump change to him and a new outfit or two for Meghan........she sure does have expensive taste in clothes as does most royal ladies, some wear repeats of their clothing and some don't. Oh well that is for another day's topic. Now on to the next lawsuit or two....LOL
I had said 11 years ago they had offered him a settlement of GBP 200K which he rejected, but I have been corrected a few minutes ago that he actually had rejected GBP 250K.
^ That money only covers partial expenses. If what lawyer.com says is their estimate, the money doesn't cover the bulk of expenses of lawyers just alone for this case. The five cases he has, the estimate of H expenses with lawyers is around GBP 2Million.
Also, H just made a 'win statement', he sounds like a person who will be making a career in suing people and the media long term. SO, I think it is safe to say - do not report on the couple?! Or report on the couple with 'opinion' pieces, which apparently is where the media has a loophole (DM won because of this loophole, an opinion piece using H own words about security since Megxit, where he had never had offered to pay, only when he was already in a court room - the Judge had actually told H to not misinform or mislead the public...)
It was the News Group Newspapers case in which Harry testified he had been offered a settlement (in 2019) not the Mirror Group, against which he won yesterday. The amount wasn't mentioned in the court ruling.
Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 1944 (Ch) (27 July 2023) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/1944.html)
I?m so glad to read that Piers Morgan was criticised in Court by the judge and yet later on denied that he knew anything about phone hacking.
It?s fine with many observers when Harry loses a case apparently but when he or Meghan win then all hell breaks loose.
This case was about phone hacking and more specifically in Harry?s case, about a young couple in love (Harry and Chelsy Davy. I would have thought that everybody would be repulsed at this tabloid groups? actions, but no again it?s ?let?s attack Harry?.
You may not like Prince Harry but his win against the Mirror is huge ? and he?s not finished yet | James Hanning | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/15/prince-harry-win-against-the-mirror-huge-piers-morgan)
The Judge's words were lukewarm talking about hacking which was 15 years ago. His words weren't strong to make waves that would be 100% favorable to Harry - stating that less than half is favorable, more than half unfavorable, not all is hacking, most is via sources/people that spotted him somewhere. I don't need to say this, the Judge's statement is available in any media outlet.
Harry judiciary case has to do with papers that hacked at that time, so yes he was offered GBP 250K which he rejected. He mentioned his brother's settlement, the real dragon fighter who opened the hacking case, which he made the NOTW shutdown, which in turn brought the Leveson.
I've provided both the leveson and juidiciary official links in this forum.
Future wording from UK Judges with Sussex cases will be interesting, the latest two cases with the words like spinning, misinforming the public seems that they have the knowledge of the oversharing couple.
The spinning (H statement) to make it look like 'ground breaking - new' no matter what - is non compos mentis, considering that each case has a thick file with claimant, defense and Judge ''every'' single word recorded.
Two latest spinning i.e.
Harry's statement win vs The Mirror Group, like if this was a new first ever case with his reference of people getting burnt trying to bring down a dragon, he's a dragon slayer. The spin opposes the fact that as a claimant he mentions his brother W who initiated the suing case, which got people in prison, fined, shutdown, 300 hacked people compensated, which then triggered the famous Leveson Inquiry which changed the culture, practices and ethics of the British press.
Unrelated to legal actions, but also a spin: their 'new' announcement of 'new' projects with their foundation. They are not 'new projects' - they are existing projects by other people founders. That their media friends accepted to use the worded spin is misinformation in broad daylight.
Which brings a thought this piggybacking using something or someone else has ''done'' to take advantage of it - taking it like yours for a success - was it in the past of H that his KP team are the real someone's creations of something's - his true character and personality was successfully covered. It's not improbable mixed with the obsession he has with his *elder brother*. I DO think Meghan does have new ideas, the drive - but she also mixes it with a bit of infringement of copyright without crediting that ''bit''.
Anyway, the Sussex will be back in court 2024.
ETA obsession towards W: *The obsession with his elder brother can't be clearer, other than H own Spare words - this latest court case; W win of GBP 1Million - the Judge 11 years ago offered H GB P250k rejected, the Mirror offered to settle without trial GBP 350k rejected by H and with his obsession towards W in mind told the Mirror he wanted GBP 450...to end up with 1/3 of what he wanted. This will further trigger his own nemesis feelings towards W bigger room, more sausages, bigger money wins - H own mind of competition wanting to one up an 'offer' didn't get the offer nor his own one up amount. H: ''we continue'' - that is a career in suing.
It seems to me that you have a hard time accepting that the judge awarded Harry any money or that he won his phone hacking case.
And as for words printed in the judgement talk about cherry picking in your posts! The judge accepted that certain Mirror group editors knew what their reporters were doing and either encouraged it or did nothing to stop it. He stated that Harry WAS impacted by the phone hacking and therefore he awarded him over 140,000 pounds because of it.
He expressed sympathy for Harry and others for being subjected to it. Such as
?13. I have also awarded a sum for aggravated damages, to reflect the particular hurt and sense of outrage that the Duke feels because two directors of Trinity Mirror plc, to whom the board had delegated day-to-day responsibility for such matters, knew about the illegal activity that was going at their newspapers and could and should have put a stop to it. Instead of doing so, they turned a blind eye to what was going on, and positively concealed it. Had the illegal conduct been stopped, the misuse of the Duke?s private information would have ended much sooner. ?
That judgement was not packed with 99% criticism of Harry or his legal team at all, as you seem to infer. There was in fact a great deal of criticism in that judgement about the behaviour of the British tabloid newspapers at that time.
If the judge had felt that Harry?s case was without merit and that the Mirror Group?s behaviour towards him, Chelsy and his friends, was beyond reproach then the judgement would have come down on the side of the newspaper group. It did not. Harry won his case. I think people should accept that.
Quote from: wannable on December 15, 2023, 03:27:24 PM
Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers
The Duke of Sussex Prince Harry won 15 out of 33 claims after taking High Court action against the Mirror's publisher for damages after claiming its newspapers were linked to unlawful information gathering
Prince Harry has won in just under half of his claims of unlawful information gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a High Court ruling today.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its titles the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
MGN denied 28 out of the 33 historical articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.
Mr Justice Fancourt gave his ruling this morning in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims. He will be awarded GBP140,600 in damages, just under a third of the GBP 443,000 he'd asked for.
His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by three others, including actor Michael Turner, aka Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Mr Turner on 4 of his 27 claims, awarding him GBP31,650 in damages.
Claims brought by actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were dismissed because they were made too late.
In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: ''I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.
''I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).
"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.''
Mr Justice Fancourt continued: ''I have accordingly awarded the duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.
''I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the press towards the duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.''
An MGN spokesperson said after the ruling: ''We welcome today's judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.''
The high-profile trial ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. Many other witnesses also submitted written testimony to the trial, such as the friends, family and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher.
Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world's media. MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any newspaper articles complained of resulted from phone hacking, while contending that the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.
The Duke has been involved in five cases at the High Court, including similar claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). His civil litigation also features a challenge against the Home Office over the provision of his personal security and the linked libel claim against ANL.
Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-high-court-mirror-31679625)
As I had posted
He won just not the amount he wanted.
Quote from: wannable on December 16, 2023, 11:30:57 PM
As I had posted
He won just not the amount he wanted.
Yes. He won. Just as Meghan also won in her cases against the Mail Group previously.
So you accuse me of not accepting but I did as I posted the news.
If you do not like details, preferably skip or disagree. I like details it tells me a lot of things.
You didn?t post the news of Harry?s win. I did, shortly after it was announced.
Practically every post of yours since that decision came down has been full of negativity in terms of what criticism has come Harry?s way or that of his team from the judges in various cases, on going and now ended. Hardly balanced!
And as far as details go?
It should be noted too that Comid Scobie?s evidence with regard to Piers Morgan?s knowledge of phone hacking was accepted by the judge, who found him a credible witness and said so! Of course Morgan came out with a blast afterwards but what else is new with him. The fact is that on the balance of probabilities (as per a civil case) the judge believed that Morgan knew exactly what was going on with reference to phone hacking done by his reporters while he was editor and commented on it.
Judge accepts evidence that Piers Morgan knew about phone hacking at The Mirror | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/piers-morgan-omid-scobie-justice-kylie-minogue-mirror-group-newspapers-b2464820.html)
?I found Mr Scobie to be a straightforward and reliable witness, and I accept what he said about Mr Morgan?s involvement in the Minogue/Gooding story
Mr Justice Fancourt
In his ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt said he accepted the evidence of royal biographer Omid Scobie, who told the trial earlier this year that Mr Morgan was told about a use of phone hacking.
The court previously heard that Mr Scobie did work experience at The Daily Mirror in spring 2002, and overheard Mr Morgan being told that information relating to Kylie Minogue and her then-boyfriend James Gooding had come from voicemails.
In his judgment, the judge said an article about them in May 2002 carried the byline of James Scott ?who was one of the showbiz journalists and a known phone hacker?.
The judge added that there was a ?170 invoice from private investigator firm TDI to Mr Scott from earlier that month, for ?extensive inquiries carried out on your behalf?, and the mobile telephone numbers of both people were in Mr Scott?s PalmPilot.
?These documents bear out Mr Scobie?s recollection,? the judge said.?
I just reposted a long article of his win
It must be boredom day
^
Harry won 140.000 and he's thrilled and happy, okay yet he could of had 350,000 in an earlier deal, somehow that does not make sense to me that he is happy......more like he lost money because he has other attorney bills to pay....seems he is not good with money at all, that 140,000 can only buy Meghan 28 dresses at 5,000 each which should last her a year at least.....if they go broke they can always sell her wardrobe.
Prince Harry withdraws libel case against the Mail on Sunday over security row article - and now faces paying newspaper's costs | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983337/Prince-Harry-withdraws-libel-case-against-Mail-Sunday-security-row.html)
Well that is one hefty mistake made and hope Harry learns a lesson from it. Life does not revolve just around Harry or Meghan wishes.
Prince Harry demands new Mirror hacking trial 'as soon as possible' unless his demands for compensation are met | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13021469/Prince-Harry-Mirror-hacking-trial.html)
Prince Harry has settled the remainder of his lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers over phone-hacking and other unlawful acts after the publisher agreed to pay substantial damages and his legal costs, his lawyer told London's High Court -
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-accepts-substantial-damages-settle-mirror-group-case-2024-02-09/
Phone hacking is totally wrong. BRF even has a right to talk on the phone.
Tampon and Swuilly tapes, BACK THEN, all those involved should have paid in a personal lawsuit. I just don?t mean what media outlets, but any Tom, Dick, n Harry reporter too.
There should have been jail time for those involved.
Yes, Iside with Henry on filing a lawsuit in phone hacking. The other things,no.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 09, 2024, 01:11:06 PM
Prince Harry has settled the remainder of his lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers over phone-hacking and other unlawful acts after the publisher agreed to pay substantial damages and his legal costs, his lawyer told London's High Court -
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-accepts-substantial-damages-settle-mirror-group-case-2024-02-09/
The publisher should not be the only paying. The publisher, media outlet did not do this first as in it hacked phones. The humans did this who run the media outlet. Do you understand what I am saying?
BREAKING: Prince Harry has lost his High Court challenge against the UK Government over a decision to change the level of his personal police protection when visiting the UK, having stepped back as a working member of the Royal Family.
https://x.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1762795466956136760?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13135221/prince-harry-loses-high-court-government-downgrade-security-uk.html
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/514356/prince-harry-loses-high-court-challenge-uk-security/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68421992
https://news.sky.com/story/harry-loses-legal-challenge-against-decision-to-take-away-his-police-protection-13082689
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/28/prince-harry-loses-high-court-challenge-to-personal-security-downgrade
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1871577/prince-harry-uk-security-court-case-home-office
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1871666/piers-morgan-prince-harry-uk-security-court-lose-home-office
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-27/harry-to-discover-outcome-of-legal-challenge-over-change-to-personal-security
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-loses-security-battle-32227919
https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26230102/prince-harry-uk-security-court-outcome/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/uk/prince-harry-security-court-government-intl/index.html
https://people.com/prince-harry-loses-fight-police-protection-uk-8601439
Prince Harry will seek to appeal against the High Court ruling, a spokesperson has said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13135861/prince-harry-appeal-high-court-ruled-home-office-downgrade-security.html
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/514356/prince-harry-loses-high-court-challenge-uk-security/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1871639/prince-harry-statement-uk-security-home-office-appeal
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1871577/prince-harry-uk-security-court-case-home-office
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-prince-harry-says-appeal-32229071
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/the-duke-of-sussex-high-court-case-over-uk-security-197307/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-harry-loses-case-against-uk-government-downgraded-security/
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/prince-harry-loses-security-court-ruling-potentially-impacting-107626195
I understand he is grandson of late Queen Elizabeth and he is son of King Charles and late Diana,Princess of Wales but he lose security protection and taxpayer he must hired bodyguard on his own and also he lose taxpayer if he visit his homeland of UK im not sure King Charles would react on Harry's case but will kept family private matters and business matters on Harry's case on court i dont think King Charles will comments or NOT!!
Maybe someone could sit this manchild down and explain the *FACTS* to him, he left the monarchy, the country and the royal family all on his own choice, that is a FACT and it can not be spun anyother way. Hence, there is NO security for you or your wife and children, pay for it as Netflix is paying you for doing nothing....now how do I get a job paying me millions while I do nothing except play polo, ride horses, accept fake awards, shout and scream nobody loves me......LOL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138807/I-like-persons-Prince-Harry-demanded-know-responsible-downgrading-police-protection-court-documents-reveal-loses-legal-battle-decision.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13137985/Prince-Harry-High-Court-legal-bill-losing-Home-Office-case.html
Harry *demands*......okay, so who is he demanding info from and does he think they are really going to do as he says....LOL. Poor child, you really are a lost soul in this world, just because you were born a royal prince does not make you a good or better person then those around you or anywhere. Someone in his circle of friends or whomever needs to sit him down tell him the facts of his life, he is no longer royal prince who can *demand* things in life. Oh well he will definitely hit bottom someday and learn the very hard way!
Quote from: Nightowl on February 29, 2024, 12:37:06 PMMaybe someone could sit this manchild down and explain the *FACTS* to him, he left the monarchy, the country and the royal family all on his own choice, that is a FACT and it can not be spun anyother way. Hence, there is NO security for you or your wife and children, pay for it as Netflix is paying you for doing nothing....now how do I get a job paying me millions while I do nothing except play polo, ride horses, accept fake awards, shout and scream nobody loves me......LOL
I'm afraid I will have to agree with the consequences you listed here. This is what happens when you stop working for the royal family.
Harry does *not* think before he speaks or takes action on something, he just goes with what ever his feelings are at the moment, I see that as I have done the same and it takes time and will power to be quiet at times in the head so you can think of what to do in a mature manner. This is causing him problems, I wonder if all the staff they employ are YES people as that does make him to go crazy at times. In the royal family I think there was someone always around to slow him down a bit and make him see things differently, now there isn't that backup.......hence we see a Harry out of control with his *demands* and how he thinks he is the victim here and nobody loves him ......he broke the *family trust* and that will not be repaired any time soon if ever. He just does not get what he has done and has let his wife also betray the family. He has had everything in life handed to him on a gold platter and there is NO sympathy for him now.
I predict that in time he will only be in the news when he does something stupid again, they will be forgotten like Edward and Wallis were. He badmouthed Catherine and I believe William will never forgive him for that ever...William will protect his wife and children at all costs to him and Harry destroyed that brotherhood with William by coming after his wife. Since when does a sister-n-law think it is proper to take pictures of William's children's bedrooms......that is dangerous right there!
Actually Edward and Wallis weren't 'forgotten at the end,' at least while Edward was alive. Wallis had developed dementia and became a recluse because of it in her widowhood. However, if any royal nowadays develops dementia they don't come out in public either.
I can remember the Duke and Duchess of Windsor coming over to London and their visits were covered by the Press as was Edward's treatment at the London Clinic. They were often pictured in magazines on board ocean liners with friends. The Queen and Charles visited the Duke in Paris. That's hardly being forgotten!
And, it was a different scenario to Harry as Edward was an ex King, but he lay in State for three days and thousands of people (ordinary Britons) filed to view his bier. The funeral service was broadcast by the BBC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_funeral_of_Prince_Edward,_Duke_of_Windsor
Harry will no doubt be buried at Frogmore as a King's son and brother and no doubt the RF will turn up as they did for the Duke at the funeral session at St George's, even though Edward hadn't lived in England for over thirty+ years.
So, if an ex monarch was 'forgiven' for an abdication that caused a genuine constitutional crisis and shook an Empire, and he and his wife weren't and aren't forgotten, then Harry (who will continue to visit his father in the months and years ahead that Charles lives) certainly will.
How do any of us know what members of the RF feel about Harry? And that includes the British media. Nobody knows but them. Anne for instance was noted as greeting Harry warmly at Balmoral and at the Coronation.
Wish fulfilment about what should be felt by others about an individual does not work.
Prince Harry's lawyers have alleged the Sun unlawfully targeted Meghan Markle via a private investigator.
The Duke of Sussex's lawyers told the High Court an investigator provided information in 2016 for two stories on the future Duchess of Sussex.
These stories were published shortly after Prince Harry and Ms Markle started their relationship.
News Group Newspapers (NGN) - which owns the Sun - deny the allegations, with a trial set for January 2025.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68627510.amp
"Prince Harry's failed legal bid to overturn a Home Office decision to deny him the right to automatic police protection cost the taxpayer more than £500,000, the Telegraph can reveal.
The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.
Figures released via a freedom of information request reveal that the total cost of fighting two separate judicial review claims lodged by the Duke of Sussex over his security reached £514,128.
That included more than £180,000 for counsel, £320,000 for the Government Legal Department, £2,300 in court fees and almost £10,000 in e-disclosure.
Mr Justice Lane dismissed the Duke's case in a scathing 52-page ruling handed down in February after two-and-a-half years of legal wrangling.
He ruled that the decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) to withdraw state-funded security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they stepped back as working royals and instead review it on a case by case basis whenever they return to the UK had not been irrational or procedurally unfair.
He also rejected the Duke's "inappropriate, formalist interpretation" of the process and said that taxpayer-funded security should not be used to protect the Duke and Duchess from paparazzi.
The ruling left the Duke facing an estimated legal bill of more than £1 million."
https://archive.fo/2024.03.27-143326/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/03/27/prince-harry-failed-police-protection-back-taxpayer-500000/
That the Royal Family actually supported the Sussexes having govt. funded security, makes H and M's claim (lie) on Oprah even worse. And that H and M blamed the security issue on the family and tried to tie it to race is particularly ugly and mean-spirited.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 29, 2024, 09:28:15 PMThat the Royal Family actually supported the Sussexes having govt. funded security, makes H and M's claim (lie) on Oprah even worse. And that H and M blamed the security issue on the family and tried to tie it to race is particularly ugly and mean-spirited.
what a surprise!
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 29, 2024, 09:28:15 PMThat the Royal Family actually supported the Sussexes having govt. funded security, makes H and M's claim (lie) on Oprah even worse. And that H and M blamed the security issue on the family and tried to tie it to race is particularly ugly and mean-spirited.
Yes it is disappointing to know that Prince Harry and Meghan's claim during the Oprah interview regarding security and the BRF was false.
I'm glad that it was proven false, as I suspected all along, but it was a mean-spirited betrayal.
Harry and Meghan have proven over and over again the type of persons they are, only fools would trust them and I don't think anyone in the royal family would ever trust them ever again. They ran away from the royal family and things are not working out for them so they want back in the horrible racist royal family, why would they do that to their children? Oh, they need the connection to the royal family to make money so hence they want back in for money purposes......not because they love the members of the royal family, or care about the royal family or would work for the Firm hence the people of the country..they just need MONEY and believe me *no amount of money will ever fill that empty soul within them*.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 30, 2024, 11:51:16 PMI'm glad that it was proven false, as I suspected all along, but it was a mean-spirited betrayal.
Hi Kristeh H., Nice to see you!
Thanks, Blue Clover!
I suspect that Harry was so sheltered and protected as a member of the BRF that he literally had no idea how things operated. I wonder if he truly thought his protection status was changed by his family, and if he inferred that it was because of Meghan's ethnicity.
I believe I read that it was documented in court that Harry was told at the Sandringham summit that RAVEC made the decisions on security, not the RF. So I don't think the Sussexes have any excuse. It seems that they deliberately lied to try to make Harry's family look bad.
Quote from: Lothwen on April 09, 2024, 10:20:38 PMI suspect that Harry was so sheltered and protected as a member of the BRF that he literally had no idea how things operated. I wonder if he truly thought his protection status was changed by his family, and if he inferred that it was because of Meghan's ethnicity.
Though Harry knew that certain senior courtiers had their fingers in the pie with regard to discussions and committees within British Govt departments, I doubt he knew exactly how these operated. I don't think for instance that RAVEC was a subject discussed around the breakfast table when Charles and his sons got together.
My belief is that Harry thought that very senior courtiers like Queen Elizabeth's Private Secretary for instance have great power over members of the RF, and knew their power in setting the agenda. Therefore the Queen's opinion about Harry's security and that of his family could be set aside as that of a doting elderly grandmother.
Sir Edward and his cronies who sat on the RAVEC committee were no friends of either Harry or Meghan in the years before the Sussexes left Britain and I think Harry hoped that it would be the govt representatives at the Home Office who would rule in his and Meghan's favour.
Quote from: Lothwen on April 09, 2024, 10:20:38 PMI suspect that Harry was so sheltered and protected as a member of the BRF that he literally had no idea how things operated. I wonder if he truly thought his protection status was changed by his family, and if he inferred that it was because of Meghan's ethnicity.
Hi Lothwen. It's great to see you here.
Yes I believe that it is possible that Prince Harry was initially unaware that RAVEC and not his family determined who would receive full time security. However by the time the couple sat day with Oprah in 2021, they would have known that the decision was out of the family's hands.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-us-visa-application-papers-judge-b2526918.html
If Harry's application for a Visa is denied, what happens next?
I'm not sure. I'd like to know under what provision he's in the country. There's many kinds of visas.
https://www.chavinimmigration.com/news/prince-harry-head-of-state-visa#:~:text=So%2C%20he%20is%20a%20likely,a%20%22working%22%20government%20official.
This article speculates he has an A-1 visa, which doesn't have any drug usage restrictions. So he's probably going to be just fine, unless he's not on that particular visa
Prince Harry loses first appeal bid in challenge over his UK police protection
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-loses-first-appeal-bid-challenge-over-his-uk-police-protection-2024-04-15/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13311299/Prince-Harry-faces-1m-bill-comprehensively-lost-High-Court-battle-Home-Office-downgrading-police-protection-Meghan-quit-royal-life.html
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/517575/prince-harry-loses-bid-appeal-high-court-uk-security/
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-loses-inital-bid-to-appeal-against-personal-security-ruling-13116069
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/15/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex-loses-initial-attempt-to-appeal-against-security-ruling
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1888625/prince-harry-high-court-appeal-uk-security
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1888469/prince-harry-discount-home-office-court
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-15/harry-loses-appeal-bid-to-challenge-decision-over-his-uk-security
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-prince-harry-suffers-major-32591938
https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/27333968/prince-harry-loses-bid-challenge-security/
NEW: "The Duke of Sussex will be seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of Mr Justice Lane", his lawyers have said.
https://x.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1779922631082291267
He needs to just give up and pay for private security. He's not going to get his PP status back when he doesn't even live in the UK, and if they allow him to "hire" the police, it would set a dangerous precedent.
Prince Harry faces £1m bill after he 'comprehensively' lost his High Court battle with the Home Office for downgrading his police protection when he and Meghan quit royal life -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13311299/Prince-Harry-faces-1m-bill-comprehensively-lost-High-Court-battle-Home-Office-downgrading-police-protection-Meghan-quit-royal-life.html
Prince Harry was forced to apologise after breaking confidentiality rules in his own High Court case.
The Duke of Sussex shared private information with Conservative MP Johnny Mercer.
https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-news-duke-of-sussex-breaks-rules
Evening Standard: Journalists named in Harry's court action against publisher (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/prince-harry-elton-john-simon-hughes-doreen-lawrence-david-furnish-b1156499.html)