Welcome to Part 2 of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Legal Actions.
Jack Royston
@Jack_Royston
Meghan Markle's lawyer accuses senior palace figure of working against her. Jenny Afia says mystery source in Royal Household provided information to "defeat" the privacy lawsuit against The Mail on Sunday. Judgement in appeal case is Thurs, Dec 2.
Quote
Meghan Markle's lawyer has accused a "senior figure" in the palace of giving information to a U.K. tabloid "in order to help defeat" the duchess's privacy lawsuit.
Meghan is suing The Mail on Sunday for printing a letter she sent her father begging him to stop talking to the media on the grounds it violated her privacy and copyright.
The Duchess of Sussex was subsequently forced into an embarrassing apology, admitting she mislead the court, after her former communications secretary handed over her private messages.
However, Jason Knauf is not the only palace insider to have provided material to the tabloid, after outgoing editor Ted Verity spoke of a separate mystery "high-grade" source.
Now Meghan's lawyer, Jenny Afia, has accused that anonymous palace figure of trying to undermine the case against the newspaper's publisher, Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Meghan Markle's Lawyer Accuses Senior Palace Figure of Working Against Her (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-lawyer-defeat-lawsuit-mail-palace-insider-senior-1654302)
IF this Newsweek article is true, MM's lawyer is angry that her client has been caught lying to the court (basically the lawyer was expecting no one to open pandoras box with Meghan's lies).
* IOW, if anyone in the RIF need to see again the court documents where MM's lawyers before the apology had sworn what we all know now that she lied.
The PDF document is heavy, quickly; 22/09/2020 Court ordered Meghan to hand over all emails, messages, etc. to validate what the MOS was stating that there is evidence. Meghan's lawyer Ian Mills told the court during the deadline of delivering emails that all any texts is deleted in 30 days. Sworn Statement.
Busted.
I wonder if the Sussexes have regrets for not sharing that they had been involved with the authors of Finding Freedom? :(
It was an odd position to take in the first place as it was painfully obvious Omid Scobie had access to inside information.
I do think it would have been better to have remained silent about the contribution via JK towards the bio FF. And I certainly wouldn?t have trusted JK to keep his mouth closed, so I would have admitted to a certain amount of cooperation with Scobie and Durward in court documents. Having said that, the court case was a suit about privacy and copyright not about how much Meghan chose to tell Scobie via Knauf in one two hour meeting. The case was and is not about FF at all.
Scobie also got some things wrong about the Sussexes lives, as many biographers do.
And it?s hardly a crime to have biographers closely cooperating with you and about you. Camilla and Charles separately and together have done so with Junor in two books. Angela Levin positively boasted how close she was to Harry for a year in her last bio of him, and it was virtually acknowledged that Robert Jobson had a great many of Charles?s aides speak to him about their boss in the Charles 70th birthday bio he wrote.
MM apologized, she forgot.
Tomorrow is the verdict of the MOS case. If Newsweek is correct, then MM lawyer is angry that another top senior palace person gave witness which 'defeats ' MM as alleged in the article. Let's see. There's a serious affront of perjury, which the first witness Jason Knauf gave, 30 pages of emails and texts, whilst the second is a mystery.
In a normal world, people in office atmosphere can't keep silent when witnessing something bad, in this case lies. I have 1 experience. The repeated offender was causing havoc, a domino effect, so I fully understand to do the correct thing. Now a days, we, everyone in the Co has access to a private and confidential line to report misdeeds.
***
I don't know why MM didn't want to disclose her relationship with Omid. The other authors didn't have that drama. The most twitter boastful was Jobson. They all followed their subject, duties, tours, in order to chat, get a bone here and there. Harry had no complaint when Angela said she did this method.
Honestly I believe it would have been better for them to acknowledge their involvement and for Meghan to own up at the beginning of the matter that she did write the letter with the public in mind with the cooperation of her former team than stating it was meant to be private. While it might have been uncomfortable at first, I believe that it would have been far better than where she is now. :( Hindsight is as always 20-20.
Well we'll just have to see what the Appeal Court's decision is tomorrow.
Meghan Markle has won an appeal hearing in her tabloid privacy case against the Mail on Sunday.
The judgement read: "The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision that the Duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the letter and those contents were personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest."
Judgement: "The articles in MoS interfered with the Duchess' reasonable expectation of privacy and were not a justified or proportionate means of correcting inaccuracies about the letter that had been contained in an article published on Feb 6 in People magazine in the US."
Here's the full judgement and summary
HRH The Duchess of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hrh-the-duchess-of-sussex-claimant-respondent-v-associated-newspapers-ltd-defendant-appellant/)
The Duchess of Sussex's statement on the judgement.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1466357790780411909?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1466357790780411909%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itv.com%2Fnews%2F2021-12-02%2Fcourt-privacy-ruling-allows-meghan-markle-to-condemn-the-british-tabloid-press
Meghan started off with a bang of doing great things while working as a member of the royal family, now left to herself, she is sinking fast. Lying on Oprah, lying to the courts and make a fool of herself on Ellen ......in my honest opinion, this woman is in need of help....I have seen the same behavior in others close to me and the end results are not good. At this point what does she want and from who ...one thing I do know.......*Respect is not a given in life regardless if you have money, power or title, it is given on how you treat others and the world*......Meghan has lost the *respect* from so many all because she LIES and now it is hard to believe a word she says. Does she think that *forgetting * is going to make it all go away, that is just a cover-up to her behavior........and the same goes for Harry. Just Sad what they have become in their own right for who they are now is on *them*.
Good. I?m glad Meghan won. There will be no trial and she won costs. A line in the sand indeed against a notorious tabloid and sister newspapers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59502787
Meghan speaks about it.
Meghan Markle Speaks Out After Winning Battle With Mail On Sunday - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxrnthf87E)
The Guardian?s view of the court case.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021- - Page 32 - The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-and-family-news-and-events-6-august-2021-a-48857-32.html#post2440950)
I can?t believe Meghan wins plus no trial or whatever she hired power of attorney I knew that!! I?m sure Meghan insulted the HM Queen Elizabeth II plus member of royal family not necessarily for that!! But she is former actress under her belts I?m called Meghan black widow I?m sure Meghan broke royal rules,traditional rules no photocall or whatever
PIERS MORGAN: Put your gloating champagne away, Princess Pinocchio | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10268465/PIERS-MORGAN-gloating-champagne-away-Princess-Pinocchio.html)
STEPHEN GLOVER: If Meghan Markle really wanted to fight for the truth, she would come to court | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10269321/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Meghan-Markle-really-wanted-fight-truth-come-court.html)
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A dark day for truth and free expression | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10270219/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-dark-day-truth-free-expression.html)
Associated Newspapers is considering Supreme Court appeal of privacy ruling in Meghan Markle lawsuit | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10266873/Associated-Newspapers-considering-Supreme-Court-appeal-privacy-ruling-Meghan-Markle-lawsuit.html)
Meghan Markle admitted she misled court but trial refused over publication of letter to her father | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10269295/Meghan-Markle-admitted-misled-court-trial-refused-publication-letter-father.html)
Meghan Markle Wins Court Appeal in Privacy Battle Against U.K. Tabloid | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-wins-final-round-of-right-versus-wrong-privacy-case-against-uk-tabloid/)
Meghan Markle wins privacy battle over letter to estranged father - read statement | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20211202127885/meghan-markle-court-case-mail-on-sunday-appeal-judgment/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59503922
How Meghan took personal risks in Mail on Sunday privacy victory | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/02/how-meghan-took-personal-risks-mail-on-sunday-privacy-victory)
Meghan Markle news: Duchess of Sussex slammed for press attacks despite court win | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1530604/Meghan-Markle-news-duchess-of-sussex-court-win-associated-newspapers-royal-family-update)
Meghan Markle sends fans hidden message as she celebrates court win | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1530451/meghan-markle-news-duchess-of-sussex-fans-reaction-daily-mail)
Meghan Markle's court drama NOT over as Supreme Court move looms | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1530436/meghan-markle-news-supreme-court-case-associated-newspapers-daily-mail)
Meghan Markle: Fears court win could set ?dangerous precedent? ? ?Troubling judgement? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1530406/Meghan-Markle-news-associated-newspaper-privacy-case)
Thomas Markle's warning to Meghan and Prince Harry: 'You owe me' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1530380/thomas-markle-news-meghan-markle-prince-harry-letter-mail-on-sunday-royal-family-spt)
OUCH!!
Mail on Sunday v Meghan: Publisher considers appeal citing 'issues with duchess' credibility' | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-02/meghan-wins-privacy-fight-with-mail-on-sunday-over-letter-to-father)
Court privacy ruling allows Meghan Markle to condemn the British tabloid press | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-02/court-privacy-ruling-allows-meghan-markle-to-condemn-the-british-tabloid-press)
Piers Morgan viciously brands Meghan a 'manipulative piece of work' after court victory - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/piers-morgan-viciously-brands-meghan-25604239)
Meghan Markle WINS bombshell legal appeal over 'private' leaked letter to dad - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-meghan-markle-wins-bombshell-25597121)
Meghan Markle wins privacy battle? but judges point out her 'unfortunate lapse of memory' and fight might not be over (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16924017/meghan-win-court-battle-unfortunate-lapse-of-memory/)
Meghan Markle news latest - Piers Morgan SLAMS 'two-faced' Duchess as she releases statement following court win (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16893932/meghan-markle-news-piers-morgan-court-case-prince-harry/)
5 bombshell 'contradictions' in Meghan Markle's legal battle that punched holes in her story (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16916781/meghan-markle-contradictions-court-win-twist/)
'Smug' Meghan Markle will feel 'vindicated' after legal win but 'won't win over public' after lies, blast royal (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16919388/meghan-markle-vindicated-legal-battle-public/)
Meghan Markle hits out after winning explosive legal battle despite 'forgetting' to tell court evidence (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16915583/meghan-markle-wont-go-trial-dad-letter/)
The Duchess of Sussex wins ruling in case against Mail on Sunday ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/the-duchess-of-sussex-wins-ruling-in-case-against-mail-on-sunday-169258/)
Quote from: Nightowl on December 02, 2021, 10:59:26 PM
Meghan started off with a bang of doing great things while working as a member of the royal family, now left to herself, she is sinking fast. Lying on Oprah, lying to the courts and make a fool of herself on Ellen ......in my honest opinion, this woman is in need of help....I have seen the same behavior in others close to me and the end results are not good. At this point what does she want and from who ...one thing I do know.......*Respect is not a given in life regardless if you have money, power or title, it is given on how you treat others and the world*......Meghan has lost the *respect* from so many all because she LIES and now it is hard to believe a word she says. Does she think that *forgetting * is going to make it all go away, that is just a cover-up to her behavior........and the same goes for Harry. Just Sad what they have become in their own right for who they are now is on *them*.
You?re right about that Meghan had lost respect for HM Queen Elizabeth II and member of royal family
Downing Street today insisted that a free Press is 'one of the cornerstones of any democracy'. One day after the Mail on Sunday lost an appeal in a privacy row with the Duchess of Sussex.
Downing Street responds to Meghan Markle legal case | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10272455/Downing-Street-responds-Meghan-Markle-legal-case.html)
People acquainted with the Sussexes will just have to walk on 🥚s, they wouldn't know if you're entering a trap/potential suing.
The timeline of the events to this case, sadly as I said 'at least' she should win copyrights, but she also got the privacy win. Her dad was setup to a fall, and he fell hook, line, and sinker (6 months with the letter, got triggered with the People Magazine 5 MM friends).
News of book sales, since the tabloids love to state that Meghan?s The Bench and FF sold barely anything. A lie in fact, the journalist and media personality Piers Morgan had a weaker showing. Despite his followers on Twitter (8 million) and Instagram (1.8 million), ?Wake Up: Why the World Has Gone Nuts? has sold just 5,650 print copies since it was published a year ago, according to BookScan.
It?s difficult to know why this happens. Sometimes, publishing and marketing executives say, there is a mismatch between what people post about on social media and the subject of their books. Perhaps the books don?t provide anything beyond what they?ve already put on Instagram. It could be that the author hasn?t pushed the book to his followers effectively, or that those followers (the ones who aren?t bots, or paid for) aren?t terribly engaged with what he posts.
[From The NY Times]
I find both books (The Bench and FF) a flop. Did my interest make me turn the page for more? No. :shrug: I've had the pleasure of reading infinitely much better books, which has slow and dull moments, but wait for it...moments.
The Duchess of Sussex
Following a hearing on 19-20 January 2021, and a further hearing on 5 May 2021, the Court has given judgment for The Duchess of Sussex on her claim for copyright infringement. The Court found that Associated Newspapers infringed her copyright by publishing extracts of her handwritten letter to her father in The Mail on Sunday and in Mail Online. Financial remedies have been agreed.
The full judgment following the 19-20 January hearing and the Court?s summary of it can be found here and here. The full judgment following the 5 May hearing can be found here.
The Mail on Sunday
The Duchess of Sussex | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10340951/The-Duchess-Sussex.html)
Oh yes? And what is this stupid rag and its sister paper going to do about it? Apart from pay money in judgement (and I hope it?s over ten million) and have its so-called journos squeal and bitch about Meghan for ever more. When?s the front page apology coming for breaching privacy?
Bottom of front page...Omid is angry, he posted it in his Twitter timeline. Because today is the worst day in paper selling potential, but it is a Sunday, Mail on Sunday...Omid says 26/12 has always been the lowest newspaper day. But then MOS published it by happy-go-lucky 26 which falls Sunday.
IMO she's not 100 percent happy because Jason exposed her. With 10M or not. The end game is one's credibility, no money can buy that. The exposure affects since date of exposure to forever. Or maybe the 10M will give her peace of mind 🤔
Quote from: wannable on December 26, 2021, 10:10:04 PM
Bottom of front page...Omid is angry, he posted it in his Twitter timeline. Because today is the worst day in paper selling potential, but it is a Sunday, Mail on Sunday...Omid says 26/12 has always been the lowest newspaper day. But then MOS published it by happy-go-lucky 26 which falls Sunday.
IMO she's not 100 percent happy because Jason exposed her. With 10M or not. The end game is one's credibility, no money can buy that. The exposure affects since date of exposure to forever. Or maybe the 10M will give her peace of mind 🤔
It might be the worst day for selling newspapers, but the message is getting out clear and fast today that this newspaper group has suffered a massive and humiliating defeat. They hoped to hang Meghan out to dry, hoped for a day in court with her, her father and a million clickbait articles. Instead they got toasted. And other outlets are publishing their defeat. They didn?t get one win in court on either privacy or copyright, not from Warby, not from the Supreme Court. Not one.
I don't think they care, dragging it to the extent of exposing her.
It's not like they're bankrupt. Omid is her closest journalist, he's angry.
But unnamed 'sources' will no longer speak for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their team have promised. The Sussexes' communications team at Archewell will speak on the record or not at all, as fans of the couple are warned to pay no heed to mystery 'sources' claiming to talk for them in the press.3 hours ago
'Sources' will no longer speak for Duke and Duchess of Sussex
?Sources? will no longer speak for Duke and Duchess of Sussex (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/01/duke-duchess-sussex-say-unnamed-sources-will-no-longer-speak/)
Behind a paywall, no idea what else it says. But after one year of so much sunshine sach...who knows.
Here's a link you should be able to read.
https://archive.ph/YNBTO
Here's the article so everyone has the opportunity to read it. Thanks for the link
@PrincessOfPeace . :computer:
QuoteIt is a time-honoured tradition in journalism, used to convey anything from a government spokesman talking off-record to, in some unethical quarters, made-up quotes.
But unnamed ?sources? will no longer speak for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their team have promised.
The Sussexes? communications team at Archewell will speak on the record or not at all, as fans of the couple are warned to pay no heed to mystery ?sources? claiming to talk for them in the press.
It follows the couple?s campaign against sections of the media, which the Duchess has criticised as a ?model that rewards chaos above truth?.
The Duke, who has a job at the Aspen Institute?s Commission on Information Disorder, has similarly condemned the "avalanche of misinformation" to be found online.
The move is aimed at boosting media literacy, making clear to followers of the Sussexes when stories are true, confirmed by a spokesman, and when they are not authorised by Team Sussex.It will require a marked difference in reporting, particularly in the United States, where flattering comments about celebrities from unnamed sources are common in even upmarket showbiz magazines.
Anonymous ?friends? have long been speaking about the Duke and Duchess, with some genuine associates doing so in a bid to protect Meghan against what they considered unfair coverage elsewhere.
Her recent court case against the Mail on Sunday arose from a handwritten letter to her father first revealed by anonymous friends in People magazine in the US.
The article saw five friends telling ?the truth? about the Duchess in February 2019, after a series of articles alleging she had behaved badly while at the palace.
"Forget the fact of who she's married to: She was royalty from the day I met her," said one. "The way she carries herself, interacts with people, is how you would expect an actual royal to behave. She personifies elegance, grace, philanthropy."
Another said: "She can make a five-star meal out of the garbage in your refrigerator."
After the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor in 2019, a source told Harper?s Bazaar magazine: ?The baby is the most peaceful, placid child you?ll ever meet. They are so proud but probably quite relieved to have gotten the photos out the way ? They?re rather tired!?
And when his little sister Lilibet arrived earlier this year, a source told US Weekly: "Harry adores Lili and loves reading her bedtime stories and rocking her to sleep. Every day just gets happier."
Some anonymous sources have previously provided briefings that have turned out to be an accurate reflection of what the Duke and Duchess think.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal heard details of an email sent by the Duchess to Jason Knauf, then her communications secretary, in which she provided a memo before he spoke to her biographers.
It read, in part: ?The Queen offered Windsor which the couple gratefully accepted. They are also very happy to have the space and privacy that Windsor affords. Being able to go for long walks, etc.?
The published book, Finding Freedom, included the passage: ??As a place to raise a child, it's really lovely?, a trusted confidant of Meghan?s said.
?They could open their door and have all of those private gardens. Both of them felt it would be a really positive thing for their child to be there, go on walks privately.?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex used to be represented by their own press secretary at Buckingham Palace and before that at Kensington Palace, before leaving the working family for a new life in California.
They now employ a team to run their non-profit foundation Archewell, which has commercial television and audio production arms to work on their content for Netflix and Spotify.
The team includes executive director James Holt, who was promoted from their press secretary, global press secretary Toya Holness, and head of communications Christine Schirmer.
What a weird article. Promises no more unnamed sources followed by multiple comments by unnamed sources.
I wonder why the article did not mention the Oprah Interview which shows all the lies that Harry and Meghan told to the world about the royal family that gave them everything they have today and that all those *lies* can be fact checked and were, millions and millions in their bank account and still they are ...whatever , I see them as miserable human selfish human beings.
Meghan to receive just ?1 from Mail on Sunday for privacy invasion | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/meghan-one-pound-mail-on-sunday-privacy-invasion)
I'm pleased to see that this will be the end of the appeals from ANL and Mail Online. Not surprised to read that there was just a symbolic payout in damages and that the media group has to cover the substantial cost for her legal fees. Curious to know what the "unspecified amount" will be for damages.
QuoteThe Mail on Sunday will pay the Duchess of Sussex just ?1 in damages for invading her privacy by publishing a private letter she had sent to her father.
The nominal sum is set out in court documents that also formally confirm that the newspaper ? and its sister website MailOnline ? has accepted defeat and will not be taking the long-running case to a supreme court appeal.
The newspaper?s publisher has also agreed to pay a confidential sum in damages for copyright infringement. The Mail on Sunday also faces having to cover a substantial part of Meghan?s legal costs, which could be more than ?1m.
Mail On Sunday will pay Meghan Markle just ?1 in damages for privacy | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370935/Mail-Sunday-pay-Meghan-Markle-just-1-damages-privacy.html)
Meghan Markle Will Receive Symbolic ?1 After Winning Privacy Case | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-receive-just-1-pound-damages-winning-privacy-case/)
Meghan Markle to receive surprising sum from Mail on Sunday in privacy court case - report | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220105130103/meghan-markle-nominal-damages-privacy-court-case/)
Meghan has complained to the BBC about Amol Rajan's reporting on her legal victory over The Mail on Sunday.
Meghan complained after Rajan, presenter of the BBC2 documentary The Princes and the Press, told listeners of the Harry, Meghan and the Media podcast that she had apologised for "misleading" the court.
The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-complains-to-bbc-over-claim-she-misled-privacy-case-vj8mj25xj?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1642436421
Archive: archive.ph (https://archive.ph/JuWjN)
She can't remember 40 pages of emails, text messages 😢
Meghan Markle issues complaint after Amol Rajan says she misled court in podcast | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10412203/Meghan-Markle-issues-complaint-Amol-Rajan-says-misled-court-podcast.html)
Meghan Markle complains to BBC over coverage of her privacy win - after it said she apologised for misleading court (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17356313/meghan-markle-complains-bbc-privacy-court/)
BREAKING: Prince Harry has launched a High Court libel action against the publisher of the Daily Mail. It is not known which specific title or article the claim relates to.
https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1496557076931305479?s=20&t=km8jAFLwp2eVjXVAQ-OdYg
I read on another site that it's regarding the recent photos taken at the restaurant with the Brooksbanks.
It says 'libel' action. Pics would probably fall under privacy.
It's understood the claim relates to an article published by The Mail On Sunday from 20th February, which reports on security issues, under the headline "Revealed: How Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret", according to @PA.
https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1496597330925170691?s=20&t=82oGbqxaIzAHxbstIEsdlg
The Daily Telegraph's Article about the most recent lawsuit.
https://archive.fo/UhPMi
Quote
The Duke of Sussex has launched a libel action against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday over a story alleging that he lied about offering to pay for his UK police protection.
The claim was lodged with the High Court on Wednesday afternoon.
It is the latest in a string of claims the Duke or the Duchess of Sussex have brought against tabloid newspapers.
Prince Harry is currently embroiled in privacy claims against News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun, as well as Mirror Group Newspapers, now Reach, over alleged phone hacking and unlawful information gathering.
He is also involved in litigation against the Home Office over his security arrangements when he is in the UK.
The Duke last month threatened to sue the Home Office over its refusal to provide security when he visits the UK. He said he would not bring his family to Britain unless he received police protection.
The Duke, who has argued that he ?inherited a security risk at birth?, insisted that he had offered to pay for the Scotland Yard protection officers himself but that the offer had been declined.
The Mail on Sunday, which broke the news of the legal action in January, last weekend alleged that he had tried to keep details of the case secret from the public.
The article, also published on MailOnline, said High Court documents showed he had sought a far-reaching confidentiality order on paperwork and witness statements surrounding the case.
It suggested that his PR team had briefed journalists that Prince Harry was being ?denied the right to pay for bodyguards?, which had led to inaccurate reports across the media.
The article claimed the Duke did not offer to pay for his police protection when he travelled to London last June to unveil a statue of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, only making the offer in later correspondence.
The Duke?s legal firm, Schillings, has alleged that the claims he lied about offering to pay for his protection and that he wanted the existence of the litigation to remain confidential are false and defamatory, the Telegraph understands.
The legal action has led royal observers to believe it is unlikely the Duke will bring his family back to the UK for the Queen?s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June.
In a statement issued in January, an unnamed legal representative for the Duke said he had ?inherited a security risk at birth?, pointing out that he had ?served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan? and that his family has been subjected to ?well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats? in recent years.
The legal representative said that the Duke had ?first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham? when his departure for the US was being discussed, adding: ?That offer was dismissed.?
The spokesman said the Duke remained willing to cover the cost of security.
His position was challenged in court last week when lawyers for the Government accused the Duke of not showing officials enough ?respect?.
Robert Palmer QC said the Duke had ?failed to afford the necessary measure of respect? to Priti Patel and a panel of specialists ?as the expert, and the democratically accountable, decisionmaker? on security and risk assessment.
In documents handed to the High Court, Mr Palmer noted that the Duke still had a ?form of exceptional status? whereby he would be given protection depending on the reason for his visit. He said if the Duke lost the case, the Government would seek the full costs, including those of the ?confidentiality exercise?.
LOL
Still no lawsuit against Valentine Low and The Times about Meghan bullying her staff at KP.
The results of the Inquiry into bullying allegations at KP and elsewhere (against Meghan and presumably others, senior staff etc) has not yet been published among the Sovereign Grant documents. The Inquiry may still be ongoing for all we know. In the circumstances Meghan may well have been advised by her legal team to wait until the results of the Inquiry are published in SG reports, and then decide whether any legal proceedings on her behalf should proceed or not. (If she is even mentioned there, which IMO she may well not be.)
Maybe but Harry and Meghan don't have to wait on the inquiry. They know if the allegations are true or false. Valentine Low said Meghan bullied staff to the point of at least one having to get councelling. Pretty damning allegations and given how litigious the couple are it seems odd imo they don't sue.
Meghan doesn?t HAVE to wait, true. However, as I?ve said she may well have been advised to wait by experienced lawyers in London. What if she sues now and more potential legal cases come out in July when the SG papers are released? She could well be mired in a case against the Times and Low at a time when vital new evidence has been brought forth via the Inquiry results. There would be very few lawyers who would advise beginning a case against a journalist or organisation who were involved in the publicising of allegations pertinent to any official Inquiry being set up, as they were.
As for Low he published allegations only that were clearly aimed by the Palace and royal sources as trying to sink Meghan and Harry?s Oprah interview just before it aired. The result of that little manoeuvre however was that it probably only brought more viewers. And it has to be emphasised, those are allegations only, not sworn facts. And Harry incidentally did take successful action against the Times with regard to their story about his Royal Marines involvement.
Prince Harry Files New Libel Complaint Against Daily Mail Publisher | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-files-libel-complaint-against-daily-mail/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60508521
Prince Harry launches libel action against Mail on Sunday | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/prince-harry-launches-libel-action-against-mail-on-sunday)
Prince Harry launches new legal battle as Duke prepares for High Court libel showdown | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1570887/Prince-Harry-latest-news-High-Court-legal-battle-Mail-on-Sunday-defamation-Duke-Sussex)
Here's the Daily Telegraph's story on the lawsuit.
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/aEC4X)
Quote
The Duke of Sussex suffered ?substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress? after a Mail on Sunday report about one of his other court cases inspired a ?feeding frenzy of hostile comments? online, his lawyers have claimed.
The Duke is suing The Mail on Sunday over what he believes is a defamatory exclusive story which told ?how Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret ? then minutes after MoS broke the story his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute?.
His lawyers say the story, and subsequent ?adverse and hostile? online comments, were ?self-evidently exceptionally serious and damaging? and constitute an ?attack on his honesty and integrity? which ?undermines his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work?.
He has ?suffered serious damage to his reputation and substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress which is continuing?, they say, in a High Court case seeking ?aggravated damages? for the Duke.
The Mail on Sunday story refers to a separate legal case brought by the Duke against the Home Office. He is seeking judicial review of the Government?s decision not to provide police protection for him and his family when they are in the UK.
The newspaper first revealed he was taking legal action in an online story on the evening of January 15, and in print on January 16.
After the paper went to print, and shortly after it was posted on MailOnline, the Duke?s team sent out a statement confirming that the Duke was seeking judicial review, believing the UK to be unsafe for his family to return to, and noting: ?The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.?
At that time, the Duke was discussing the details of his departure from official royal duties with his brother, father and grandmother at what has become known as the ?Sandringham Summit?.
When the court case had its first hearing on February 18th, lawyers acting for the Government appeared to challenge that statement, saying the offer of payment ?was notably not advanced to Ravec [the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures]? when the Duke visited the UK in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.
In any event, the court documents note, ?personal protective security is not available on a privately financed basis? and Ravec does not make decisions on security on the basis of payment.
The following weekend, The Mail on Sunday published a second story stating that ?the revelations are a crushing rebuttal to Harry?s initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill?.
In papers now filed to the High Court, the Duke?s lawyers claim the court hearing ?was no rebuttal at all to the Claimant?s public statement, let alone a ?crushing? one?.
They argue it refers only to the Duke?s dealings with Ravec, and not his offers of payment for police protection made to other parties.
The Duke ?has been upset (but sadly unsurprised) by the Defendant?s distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in breach of the most basic journalistic standards and ethics,? they say.
They object particularly to the suggestion that the Duke tried to keep his legal claim a secret, and the idea that he ?improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion by authorising his ?spin doctors? to put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection? after The Mail on Sunday story was published.
They also object to the word ?EXCLUSIVE? being used to promote the story, its prominence on MailOnline, and the ?numerous gratuitous photographs of the claimant and his wife and family?.
When the online article invited readers to ?share what you think?, they say, the public responded with more than 6,460 comments, ?the majority of which are adverse and hostile?.
The ?exceptionally serious and damaging? claims ?constitute an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work in general, and in efforts to tackle online misinformation in particular (through the Archewell Foundation)?, legal documents argue.
?It must have been plain to the [Mail on Sunday] that by giving these serious allegations such huge publicity in the terms and manner that it did, leading to inevitable repetition and the feeding frenzy of hostile comments, it could not but cause [Prince Harry?s] reputation substantial damage and cause considerable distress and hurt to the [Duke?s] feelings, as has been the case.?
The Duke?s lawyers asked for the story to be taken down from MailOnline.
It is alleged that The Mail on Sunday, in response, accused Prince Harry of ?chill[ing] further discussion? and issuing proceedings for his own ?media management purposes?, ?as part of his continuing self-declared battle with anyone in the media who dares to publish anything about him which is less than flattering?.
As a result of failing to take the story down, his lawyers say, Prince Harry has ?suffered increased upset and distress and injury to his feelings?.
The Duke is seeking damages including aggravated damages for libel, an injunction preventing The Mail on Sunday from re-publishing defamatory statements, and publication of the High Court?s judgment.
Associated Newspapers Limited, which publishes The Mail on Sunday, are defending the claim.
I cringe at Harry's lawyer saying his "Feelings have been hurt".
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 22, 2022, 07:22:39 PM
I cringe at Harry's lawyer saying his "Feelings have been hurt".
Well I certainly hope that going forward that he chooses to not read the online tabloid comments. I'm understand that he's done so in the past but had hoped that he'd given it up. It's rare when there isn't some ridiculous comment about any story over there.
Apparently the Lawyer has apologized to the Judge/to the court. All the latest above has been scratched out of the claim (document), the Judge will keep half of the document secret, not for public consumption (lawyer.com says that means Harry will lose, hence the secret). Him feeling unfit to work or do anything has nothing to do with the original claim of requesting UK police protection.
I don't know what Harry or his lawyer was thinking, but with the I feel and external organizations, companies saying he is unfit to work equates to his team trashed themselves. Anyway, this part as of yesterday's hearing is out.
Harry's Court Setback Shows Libel Case Against Old Enemy Is 'Ill-Advised' (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-court-setback-shows-mail-sunday-libel-case-old-enemy-ill-advised-1704770)
QuoteJudge Matthew Nicklin stated in a court filing, dated April 26 and seen by Newsweek: "I have refused to direct trial of the issue of serious harm.
"I appreciate that [Prince Harry's] case is one based (at this stage) solely upon inference, but ultimately this is an issue of fact."
Meghan and Harry?Back From the Jubilee?Have Conflict Waiting Down the Line (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-back-platinum-jubilee-lilibet-birthday-conflict-waiting-down-line-1714176)
QuoteThe duke's lawyers were back in court on June 9, arguing over the meaning of the Mail on Sunday story during a preliminary hearing.
I don't know what to think of this one. Harry's lawsuit against HM government over police bodygurd WAS a secret for over a bit more than a year. Clearly someone in the 'system' whispered the news to the MOS. Now my question is why can't it be news? Harry is suing for that. (ETA: Yes the MOS as an 'exclusive breaking news' has the copyrights when worldwide media ask permissions to copy/paste and it does come with a ''price'', so they made a lot of money of off that news and in the above article will fight/take it all the way in the court. Will Harry also agree to stay or relinquish?)
As a side note, Harry had the best protection this past weekend, the Queen's personal security related people were with the Sussexes during the entire duration (including inside St. Paul's, eagle eyed royal watchers ID 2 of the men seated behind the couple)
Reportedly the Duke of Sussex is considering a second lawsuit against the Home Office.
Quoteack Royston
@Jack_Royston
Prince Harry is considering a new lawsuit after the palace didn't tell the Home Office he'd pay for police security. He is "engaged in pre-action correspondence for a proposed second judicial review claim in relation to these matters, and intends to issue that claim shortly."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62044951
Well the one thing is that the lawyers just love the Sussex's for all the lawsuits they keep filing....boy to have that endless bank account to pay those very high attorney fees, I know attorney fees, I worked for one and $600 an hour is not cheap!...Soon they will be in the poor house while the attorneys laugh all the way to the bank....LOL
Prince Harry had 'significant tensions' with top royal aide Sir Edward Young, High Court hears | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10990445/Prince-Harrys-begins-battle-Home-Office-police-protection-UK-visits-Meghan.html)
Prince Harry Seeks Judicial Review Over U.K. Police Protection | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-seeks-judicial-review-over-uk-police-protection-for-his-family/)
Prince Harry Wins First Stage in Libel Lawsuit Against Mail on Sunday | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-wins-first-stage-libel-lawsuit-against-mail-on-sunday-publisher/)
Prince Harry admits to 'significant tensions' with the Queen's private secretary | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220707144774/prince-harry-significant-tensions-queen-private-secretary-state-security/)
Prince Harry's legal battle continues following family trip to Wyoming | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220707144728/prince-harry-legal-battle-heard-high-court-details/)
Prince Harry scores victory after High Court judge rules newspaper article was 'defamatory' | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220708144857/prince-harry-first-victory-article-was-defamatory/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62044951
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62090652
Prince Harry wins latest round in libel fight against Mail on Sunday | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/article-in-the-mail-on-sunday-about-prince-harrys-home-office-legal-claim-was-defamatory-high-court-rules-12648056)
Prince Harry?s libel claim against Mail on Sunday boosted by high court ruling | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/08/prince-harry-libel-claim-against-mail-on-sunday-boosted-by-high-court-ruling)
Prince Harry told Royal Family tensions 'irrelevant' to status change 'Striking inability' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1636965/prince-harry-court-case-security-row-home-office-duke-of-sussex-latest-update)
Harry wants Archie and Lilibet to 'know his home' as Duke prepares for security showdown | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1636740/prince-harry-archie-lilibet-security-latest)
Prince Harry wins High Court battle in latest in security saga | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1637384/prince-harry-london-high-court-victory-security)
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-07-08/mail-on-sunday-article-about-harry-was-defamatory-judge-rules
Prince Harry 'kept in dark' by palace amid 'significant tensions' with top aide - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-not-told-royal-27422189)
Prince Harry wins first part of legal battle against newspaper over security row - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-wins-lawsuit-against-27429079)
Prince Harry lays bare 'significant tensions' with Queen's top aide as he sues Home Office over protection row | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19117618/prince-harry-significant-tensions-queen-aid-security/)
Prince Harry wins latest court battle in blow to free press as judge rules article made him look bad | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19131104/prince-harry-high-court-ruling-libel-security/)
Prince Harry wins latest round in libel fight against Mail on Sunday | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/article-in-the-mail-on-sunday-about-prince-harrys-home-office-legal-claim-was-defamatory-high-court-rules-12648056)
Parts of an article in The Mail on Sunday about the Duke of Sussex's legal claim against the Home Office were defamatory, a High Court judge has ruled.
Prince Harry wins bid to bring High Court challenge against Home Office over police protection | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11038943/Prince-Harry-wins-bid-bring-High-Court-challenge-against-Home-Office-police-protection.html)
Prince Harry Wins Legal Right to Challenge Status of His U.K. Security | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-wins-legal-right-to-challenge-removal-of-his-u-k-government-security/)
Prince Harry celebrating good news over UK security arrangement drama | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220722146118/prince-harry-uk-security-arrangements-court-case-victory/)
Prince Harry wins bid to bring High Court challenge against the Home Office after being denied police protection | US News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-wins-bid-to-bring-high-court-challenge-against-the-home-office-after-being-denied-police-protection-12656889)
Prince Harry?s case against Home Office can proceed, high court judge rules | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/22/prince-harry-case-against-home-office-can-proceed-high-court-judge-rules)
Prince Harry court victory: Duke of Sussex WINS High Court appeal in Home Office row | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1644326/Prince-Harry-court-case-result-home-office-security-row-UK-Duke-of-Sussex-latest)
Prince Harry wins latest court fight against Home Office over security arrangements - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-harry-wins-latest-27548522)
'If Prince Harry gets his way, he'd become the most expensive Royal in history' - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-royal-protection-expensive-27549783)
Prince Harry WINS bid to take Home Office to court over security - but judge unleashes blow to Duke's case | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19282132/prince-harry-wins-police-protection-challenge-high-court/)
Meghan and Harry have been quite successful so far, wholly or in part, with all their cases in British courts, really.
What did they win...Money, approval to be back in the royal family, police protection while they sit in Ca doing nothing, HM giving them the blank check to the family funds....just what is the win? I bet my last pair of gorgeous pearl earrings that most of the doors in the royal family are closed to them as who in their right mind would trust them for everything anyone says to them will be on TV, in Netflix or a book....Trust is the most important thing in the world to most people and we all know from their actions and behavior and words that you can NOT trust the Sussex's ever again. They can win all the lawsuits they have out there yet that does not mean they are *trustworthy* or *honest*. Everything anyone does in life has *consequences* even a whisper.
It seems to me that I can post nothing here with regard to the Sussexes without receiving a diatribe every time about the Sussexes seeming lying and untrustworthiness.
Well, guess what! The Sussexes have been lied about in the British tabloids from the beginning as well, including pretty terrible insults about Meghan appearing in porn and bringing up her children gender fluid, and her mother being in jail and living in a crime ridden neighbourhood. All lies, beginning in a tabloid journalist?s imagination. Not to mention so called royal experts saying whatever comes into their mouths about Harry and Meghan on talk shows without offering any proof at all.
My last post on the Sussexes was in this thread. I wrote two sentences, a mild observation that was accurate about wins against British media and others.
This latest legal action has not been about lies or truth. It?s been about Harry attempting to protect his family when he is in the UK. Reports have shown that protection was in fact withdrawn by a committee, which unknown to Harry included two members of the Royal Household, one of them Sir Edward Young (a man noted in a couple of broadsheets as not being too successful as the Queen?s Private Secretary.) He and Harry had clashed on several occasions including when Harry was attempting to see his grandmother to talk to her. We don?t know what Young and the other we?re doing on this committee but it would be quite easy to guess.
This is not about the British tabloids or other media in Britain lying, it is all about what the Sussex's have done in not telling the truth. I would not trust the British tabloids either, they need to be held accountable for their words like anyone else.
Protection in the UK is what Harry is afraid of....didn't he realize that in leaving the royal family that all the perks, money and cars and everything else was no longer his to have, that includes security? Surely both of them realized that, it is like in leaving a career/job that a person has, if no longer employed in the company then your perks are gone, like a paycheck, vacation time, medical....surely they can't be that dumb to not realize that. Harry's actions are what he is showing the world, a spoiled brat as my friends say...he is full of his own ego and entitlement in thinking that he can have the bank of dad pay for him, all the security he had when he worked for the Firm, everything, heck he still flies in a private jet while telling us still to listen to him about climate changes and not fly.
His trip to England recently, was he protected, and surely Meghan should of known NOT to roll down the window of the limo so that no one could see them or attack them because that right there showed their lack of understanding protection, yet she had to be seen ....as we saw. And what I don't get is who is he being protected from? He is living in America, not the UK and he might have house there, (not a home) and since it is empty(since Eugenie is now living in a foreign country) and he is not visiting anytime soon so far, what is the issue of being protected in the UK since he does not live there?
This is in my opinion just a way for them to attack HM and the entire family and to be seen and heard on the world stage....one lawsuit after another and I bet more to come.....Just what else can they do to be seen and heard on the world stage except file another lawsuit, they really need attention and this is one way of doing it.....winning all or any of these lawsuits is NOT changing a thing, *it is just something to brag about and makes them feel good that they won....yet just what did they win?* Can the courts fire the people involved in the decisions or give them a fine or what? Just what did they win?
He won to be heard only why he needs government security, all other parts dismissed, like questioning RAVEC.
So one of two will come out of the hearing of why he needs it. It is meant to be kept confidential. I?m sure his lawyers have already told him that it is a double edge sword. Some lawyers will say the Judge is being mischievous by accepting the hearing. It?s going to be documented.
The media is being mischievous with the word win. Preferably read the court 1 page document.
Quote from: wannable on July 23, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
He won to be heard only why he needs government security, all other parts dismissed, like questioning RAVEC.
So one of two will come out of the hearing of why he needs it. It is meant to be kept confidential. I?m sure his lawyers have already told him that it is a double edge sword. Some lawyers will say the Judge is being mischievous by accepting the hearing. It?s going to be documented.
The media is being mischievous with the word win. Preferably read the court 1 page document.
Some lawyers according to your posts have been constantly saying that Meghan will lose this case, Harry will lose that one and judges concerned (who certainly know what they are doing more than a poster commenting on a royal forum) shouldn?t have been accepting this or doing that. It?s funny that Meghan and Harry have won so many legal cases then if you were correct, which you weren?t!
They've lost cases as well.
This one is against HM Home Office. Harry's lawyers during the hearing have to explain to satisfy or not why Harry needs tax funded police protection. Whatever they explain will be documented. The real question is will it be leaked.
Quote from: Nightowl on July 23, 2022, 10:09:48 AM
This is not about the British tabloids or other media in Britain lying, it is all about what the Sussex's have done in not telling the truth. I would not trust the British tabloids either, they need to be held accountable for their words like anyone else.
Protection in the UK is what Harry is afraid of....didn't he realize that in leaving the royal family that all the perks, money and cars and everything else was no longer his to have, that includes security? Surely both of them realized that, it is like in leaving a career/job that a person has, if no longer employed in the company then your perks are gone, like a paycheck, vacation time, medical....surely they can't be that dumb to not realize that. Harry's actions are what he is showing the world, a spoiled brat as my friends say...he is full of his own ego and entitlement in thinking that he can have the bank of dad pay for him, all the security he had when he worked for the Firm, everything, heck he still flies in a private jet while telling us still to listen to him about climate changes and not fly.
His trip to England recently, was he protected, and surely Meghan should of known NOT to roll down the window of the limo so that no one could see them or attack them because that right there showed their lack of understanding protection, yet she had to be seen ....as we saw. And what I don't get is who is he being protected from? He is living in America, not the UK and he might have house there, (not a home) and since it is empty(since Eugenie is now living in a foreign country) and he is not visiting anytime soon so far, what is the issue of being protected in the UK since he does not live there?
This is in my opinion just a way for them to attack HM and the entire family and to be seen and heard on the world stage....one lawsuit after another and I bet more to come.....Just what else can they do to be seen and heard on the world stage except file another lawsuit, they really need attention and this is one way of doing it.....winning all or any of these lawsuits is NOT changing a thing, *it is just something to brag about and makes them feel good that they won....yet just what did they win?* Can the courts fire the people involved in the decisions or give them a fine or what? Just what did they win?
After the hearing the Judge will affect or not the present and future of the none working royals, as I said 1 of 2 options will happen. Affect: Harry wins, there will be protection for Harry, Andrew, Anne, both Princesses of York 24/7. Not Affect: No protection, only Anne when she's working. The challenge (the hearing granted) according to the court paper ''has to be mantained confidential'' IF it is leaked, who and what will happen then. Hence the 2 edge sword. IF leaked, we all know the media will destroy Harry no matter what, because it is related to 'tax payer' funded police. Harry doesn't want just any security, he wants specifically the tax payer funded police that will have to give Harry inteligence services, which he doesn't actually have. The decision of the Judge IS very significant for the royals I mentioned. ALL other parts have been dismissed, like I said RAVEC, or paying for protection officers. IOW, RAVEC is out of the question, Harry nor nobody can question who are the members of RAVEC and tax payer funded police can't be privately paid. Retire as a police officer and enter or make your own security company for celebs.
IOW, the Judge's decision can have forever during the royal's lifetime police protection being a working royal or not. This can also be extended to a second hearing by PM working or not (that is what I've read in lawyer circles blogs and verified social media accounts.
The key word is the UK has a Monarchy, senior royals working/not are targets. Same with PM's exes or actuals.
It might change and go US Presidents and exes way, forever until death (for the whole fam)
No one wants a tragedy at the end of the day.
I DO want Harry's case to win. I DO want to see not only him but Andrew and his family and especially Anne have it 24/7.
Same for the Wessexes with Judge decision affect 24/7 no affect: only when they work. They have the same situation as Anne.
In my opinion the only security that any royal with the exception of HM and her heirs is that when a royal is working, they get protection and if not working then they have to pay for their own protection. This is taxpayer money, people work darn hard and to have royals protected just because they are royals and go shopping or whatever as it is not an event for work is wrong.....These are not paupers, they have money, endless bank accounts so pay for your own protection when you go to something that is not a work related event. That to me makes it equal for the royal and the taxpayer for lots of people want to go see the royals at events.
This with Harry, his actions, decisions and words are all on the level of a spoiled brat having a temper fit....he has all his life been cuddled, spoiled and given every thing at his command......no wonder he is the way he is today....and I get that for I did the same with my daughter, she wanted something, she got it from mom 100% till mom realized how wrong she was and made changes which did not go over well...we both learned some hard lessons during that time period, so I see Harry as the same as my daughter and he is not learning a darn thing....he is not a sharp intelligent man, sure he can fly a plane yet dealing with the human race is something he does not know how to do as he seems to think everyone jumps at his word.....metal and humans are 2 very different species.
Quote from: Nightowl on July 23, 2022, 11:27:44 PM
In my opinion the only security that any royal with the exception of HM and her heirs is that when a royal is working, they get protection and if not working then they have to pay for their own protection. This is taxpayer money, people work darn hard and to have royals protected just because they are royals and go shopping or whatever as it is not an event for work is wrong.....These are not paupers, they have money, endless bank accounts so pay for your own protection when you go to something that is not a work related event. That to me makes it equal for the royal and the taxpayer for lots of people want to go see the royals at events.
This with Harry, his actions, decisions and words are all on the level of a spoiled brat having a temper fit....he has all his life been cuddled, spoiled and given every thing at his command......no wonder he is the way he is today....and I get that for I did the same with my daughter, she wanted something, she got it from mom 100% till mom realized how wrong she was and made changes which did not go over well...we both learned some hard lessons during that time period, so I see Harry as the same as my daughter and he is not learning a darn thing....he is not a sharp intelligent man, sure he can fly a plane yet dealing with the human race is something he does not know how to do as he seems to think everyone jumps at his word.....metal and humans are 2 very different species.
Harry offered to pay himself for his family?s protection and that was repeated at the beginning of this Court action, though the Committee deliberately made no mention of it.
So, it would not and will not cost taxpayers anything.
?Coddled all his life?? Would that include the ten years in the Army including two tours of service flying helicopters in war zones?
?Dealing with the human race?? Well Harry dealt with the human race in Lesotho when he began Sentebale with Prince Seiso.
Harry also dealt with the human race when he began the Invictus Games for maimed and wounded vets.
He was certainly dealing with humans when he worked with ?Walking with the Wounded? to the North Pole and again in a long Walking with the Wounded? to the South Pole the next year.
And Harry has worked for people with The Halo Trust to remove Land Mines which kill and maim humans.
Not to mention has raised millions for charities by playing in a dozen polo matches over the years.
privatizing the police is out of the question.
Quote from: wannable on July 24, 2022, 02:43:05 PM
privatizing the police is out of the question.
I agree that the taxpayers, Home Office and the Met Police will not allow that to happen any more than the Secret Service would permit it here in the U.S. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Harry and his family will receive the taxpayer funded security when he/they are participating in official engagements associated with the BRF ie: DoE's funeral and the Jubilee related events. When they're here in the UK on private visits they'd be protected by the security of the residences they're likely to visit: CH, WC, Balmoral and Sandringham.
The Duke files a second lawsuit this time naming the Metropolitan Police.
Harry Files New Lawsuit Against U.K. Government in Sign Tensions Remain (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-files-new-lawsuit-against-u-k-government-tensions-remain-police-security-1730681)
QuotePrince Harry has formally filed a second lawsuit against the U.K. government at a time when commentators have suggested tensions with the royal family are easing.
The Duke of Sussex is already suing the British Home Office over its decision to remove his police protection, first taken in 2020, which he says means it is unsafe in Britain for him, Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.
Now he has filed a second lawsuit against the same government department but also naming the Metropolitan Police as a second defendant, the High Court confirmed to Newsweek.
It will focus on a decision in January 2022 that individuals should not be allowed to pay privately to receive police protection.
:wacko: ^
*****
In other similar legal action news, the company Meghan invested ''Clevr Brands'' has received a Code Violation from California Health & Safety, apparently their products have lead and lead compounds, type of harm: birth defects and other reproductive harms. The California H&S are requesting the company to recall all products dated since 1 June, 2021. To be notified to the FDA.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZOWgJNWIAA_5Cb?format=jpg&name=large)
The above is a critical violation, inspectors will be all over the Co. for years.
IMO the Co. wasn't transparent with Meghan. It's really bad luck April 2021 she invests, 4 months later August 2021 the Co receives the Code violation for Lead Contamination. As per law, the Health & Safety will make this month August 2022 a critical check because of the violation, this may sink or float the Co.
The more critical the violation, usually in 1 year the scenario of sink/float. Smaller code violations a Co. gets babysit for ''years''.
Prince Harry files his second lawsuit against UK government and Scotland Yard | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11080619/Prince-Harry-files-second-lawsuit-against-UK-government-Scotland-Yard.html)
Prince Harry security: Diana's ex-bodyguard says 'nobody said he wouldn't get protection' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1650732/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex-security-row-royal-protection-diana-ken-wharfe-latest-vn)
Prince Harry launches SECOND lawsuit over ban on paying for police protection in UK | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1650710/Prince-Harry-news-lawsuit-home-office-met-police-protection-uk-security-latest-update)
Prince Harry files second lawsuit over ban on paying for police protection in UK - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-files-second-lawsuit-27660466)
Quote from: wannable on August 04, 2022, 05:46:07 PM
The above is a critical violation, inspectors will be all over the Co. for years.
IMO the Co. wasn't transparent with Meghan. It's really bad luck April 2021 she invests, 4 months later August 2021 the Co receives the Code violation for Lead Contamination. As per law, the Health & Safety will make this month August 2022 a critical check because of the violation, this may sink or float the Co.
The more critical the violation, usually in 1 year the scenario of sink/float. Smaller code violations a Co. gets babysit for ''years''.
Oh well, Meghan doesn?t own the company. She will just withdraw her shares and discontinue her investment. No problem.
Quote from: sara8150 on August 04, 2022, 06:59:06 PM
Prince Harry files his second lawsuit against UK government and Scotland Yard | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11080619/Prince-Harry-files-second-lawsuit-against-UK-government-Scotland-Yard.html)
Prince Harry security: Diana's ex-bodyguard says 'nobody said he wouldn't get protection' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1650732/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex-security-row-royal-protection-diana-ken-wharfe-latest-vn)
Prince Harry launches SECOND lawsuit over ban on paying for police protection in UK | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1650710/Prince-Harry-news-lawsuit-home-office-met-police-protection-uk-security-latest-update)
Prince Harry files second lawsuit over ban on paying for police protection in UK - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-files-second-lawsuit-27660466)
Seriously, another lawsuit. Well he sure is keeping lawyers busy and very happy for they must be rolling in money from all the lawsuits that the Sussex's have filed. My former boss, head of a law firm years ago charged over $600 an hour, bet today it is almost double that if not more.......maybe either Harry or Meghan should go to law school and become an attorney themselves and save some money.....LOL
And since he lives in the US and in Ca why is he suing for protection in England? He rarely goes there so that does not make sense to me unless he is planning a very long term vacation in Windsor or moving back there quietly...wrong, nothing the Sussex's do is ever quiet. Omid would have a fit I bet if they did something he could not tweet or print or shout to the world about.....heaven forbid if they are ever quiet about anything.... :laugh10:
There have been several threats against the Sussexes that have been investigated by the police and other authorities over the years of their marriage and before.
And as for threats and danger, an envelope containing suspicious white powder was sent to the couple quite early on in the marriage and the Palace and authorities had to test it and deal with it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/megh...-powder-2018-2
https://time.com/5170283/london-poli...meghan-markle/
There was also a court case a couple of years ago involving racists who made viable threats against Harry about Archie and ?race treason? for marrying Meghan and having a child with her, suggesting he should be shot.
That may have been just the tip of the iceberg. There were reports that Palace authorities were having to constantly deal with racist abuse and threats to Meghan on their IG and Twitter.
iview (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-...harry/11223274)
And another case, earlier this year, involving racist threats and calling for Archie to be ?put down? on a podcast in Britain. Court case.
Racist Podcast Hosts Called for Prince Harry?s 3-Year-Old Archie to Be ?Put Down? (https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-archie-threatened-with-death-by-racist-british-podcast-hosts-who-praised-ariana-grande-bomb)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/racist-po...085520394.html
I think if we knew all the threats facing the Queen, Charles and William, we'd be astonished. Not ever threat makes the headlines.
During the inquiry into the British press 10 years ago, the editor of the daily mail said he recieved around 300 pictures of Pippa Middleton a week. Cant' imagine it was a walk in the park.
I'm not sure who's guiding Harry through all of this but I don't think he's following the best of advice.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 06, 2022, 12:17:26 AM
I think if we knew all the threats facing the Queen, Charles and William, we'd be astonished. Not ever threat makes the headlines.
During the inquiry into the British press 10 years ago, the editor of the daily mail said he recieved around 300 pictures of Pippa Middleton a week. Cant' imagine it was a walk in the park.
I'm not sure who's guiding Harry through all of this but I don't think he's following the best of advice.
No doubt every royal receives threats. Few however end up in court as those I?ve linked have? Have the Queen, Charles, Pippa etc received racist threats involving a three year old being shot? Has Pippa etc. received an envelope full of white powder the authorities had to test? Have they all been called ?race traitors??
At the end of the day they hired UK private security for their latest UK trip and the educated guess of ex met police. 1 of the ex retired RPO use to work directly for Prince Harry when he was a working royal.
Mr Langdown, now in the private sector, served as Harry's taxpayer-funded bodyguard for more than a decade, including through some of the most tumultuous periods of his life - including the royal's wild trip to Las Vegas in 2012. And in January this year he was given an honour by the Queen - the Royal Victorian Medal - for services to the Royal Family.
Meghan and Omid got busted in a Court of Law (they thought William wouldn't rescind Jason's NDA who had 30 emails 2 dozens of Whatsapp messages, Omid lied, Meghan lied, she then said she didn't remember those 30 emails, 2 dozen of Whatsapp messages). Right, they are not friends. :hehe:
Quote from: TLLK on September 20, 2022, 12:30:02 AM
:welcome: @changemhysoul to Royal Insight Forum.
Thank you!
Quote from: Blue Clover on September 20, 2022, 12:25:06 AM
@changemhysoul I thought Meghan and Omid were besties but based on what I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the case. I think he is trying to break into the ranks of entertainment journalism with his new, more respectable gigs with GMA and ABC. I am unsure if he has close connections with the royals or if they consider him a go-to reporter when they have something to share.
:welcome:
Thank you! I assume, Omid got more interaction from the couple 1. during the various attacks on her during her pregnancy and just in general, he was one of the few that weren't making thinly veiled threats of "talk to us or we'll right bad stories about you." (Richard Palmer did a twitter thread about this and Camilla, another KP favorite said it was the media that shaped perceptions and also complained on the Princes and the Press, that she and other royal reporters didn't get to have a chance to have a private meeting with Meghan like how they have for other members of the RF)
Along with the fact that Omid is also mixed (his mother is Iranian) so he'd be able to understand the nuances of race a little more as a POC. But really, Omid being Meghan's best friend came from the fact that Omid didn't take an anti-Meghan stance and was nice about her so he became her 'friend' when other RR aren't referenced as 'friends' when they have even more serious and close ties to the royals spanding over years until Meghan arrived.
As for emails and such, I've been doing some looking and I can't find anything about 30 emails between the two or can I find anything about 12 dozen whatsapps. I did see that Meghan would have to hand over 6 months of text messages in general but nothing said it was all about Omid. And then, the email that came out in court (which ended up helping her case because Jason only submitted partial emails to try and paint a narrative and the court told him to release the full thing) only showed Meghan giving bullet point details about certain narrative's about her. It was nothing compared to say, the access given by Charles for his book, or the access Angela is getting for her book. So yeah, Omid and Meghan could be friendly but there's nothing to imply that she's his bff or they just causally chat with each other. (It's also worth noting that if we're going to reference the emails, it came it out in court that Meghan was upset about something Omid put in Finding Freedom, that he got wrong. One would think her bestie would get it right.) Meghan had more involvement in the Hubb Community Kitchen cookbook than she did in finding freedom. + we're acting as if it was some big secret when this would've come out during litigation, the case just never got to that point because Meghan had won on merit. And maybe she didn't remember (seeing as this all happened during that she was routinely being attacked without stepping outside of the house.), sending bullet point information to your aide might not take up the biggest space in your mind.
Should she had owned up to it sooner? Sure, should have said that she allowed her friends to talk to Omid? Sure. But this doesn't mean they're bff's as much as people want to paint them as such, especially when, the email only showed her sending Jason talking points, in bullet point form. If people are going to write about you, I guess, one would try to correct some things but it's not sinister level of involvement some people try to spin it as.
And speaking of the emails, I find it funny or said really, in the text messages, Meghan kept telling Jason she didn't want to work on the book or do anything like that. And he kept pushing and pushing and pushing until she agreed, only for it to be turned around on her and used against her by the person that suggested it. I wish she would've went with her gut on that one.
In fact, I did another look before I responded and it seems like Jason himself, had more involvement in the book than Meghan did. He want her to work with the authors (or himself because as Meghan stated, she approved getting some facts right but didn't know the extent of Jason involved himself) while at the same time saying, none of her friends should talk to Omid. It's funny, how much of a set up it seems like when you look at everything.
Does anyone know if the family keeps the next week of mourning together? I the article about Harry and Meghan staying and another one saying King Charles along w/ Queen Camilla are headed to Scotland, so if there isn't anymore family stuff, I wonder if they'll be headed home today or tomorrow.
EDIT:
Fair. I assume, whoever told him to go to the Daily Mail when the case had nothing to do with the RF.
And then, whoever told him to push Meghan into doing the book when she stated she was uncomfortable with it but him being in family longer, she trusted him. I do wonder who gave him that go ahead.
Jason followed his employers orders. Nothing beats a court of law. People can deny it until the moon turns blue.
It is what it is.
''Do not leave your reputation to chance or gossip; it is your life's artwork, and you must craft it, hone it, and display it with the care of an artist.''
― Robert Greene
Does anyone know if the family keeps the next week of mourning together? I the article about Harry and Meghan staying and another one saying King Charles along w/ Queen Camilla are headed to Scotland, so if there isn't anymore family stuff, I wonder if they'll be headed home today or tomorrow. Quote.
I don?t think the family have any more engagements together until after the period of mourning is over. Each will just have a time of reflection and relaxation with their own spouses and families. King Charles will indeed be in his beloved Scottish home and I think the Sussexes will be back in California by tomorrow. They must be missing their little ones so much.
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 02:20:16 PM
Jason followed his employers orders. Nothing beats a court of law. People can deny it until the moon turns blue.
It is what it is.
''Do not leave your reputation to chance or gossip; it is your life's artwork, and you must craft it, hone it, and display it with the care of an artist.''
― Robert Greene
Jason did indeed follow his employer?s orders and we all know which employer. And it?s worth noting that Meghan won both parts of her civil suit in a Court of Law against the Sunday and Daily Mail. Nothing does indeed beat a court of law. You?re right.
Yes GBP 1 pound, but got exposed, a Jane Doe would have been jailed.
Meghan Markle will be paid 1 pound ($1.36) by a British tabloid after a judge ruled that the newspaper breached her privacy
The woman has lied so many times, then exposed, keep on talking, she ruined her own reputation.
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 03:02:55 PM
Yes GBP 1 pound, but got exposed, a Jane Doe would have been jailed.
Meghan Markle will be paid 1 pound ($1.36) by a British tabloid after a judge ruled that the newspaper breached her privacy
The woman has lied so many times, then exposed, keep on talking, she ruined her own reputation.
If you win a civil case in a court of law it is a win, and you certainly don?t go to jail. That would make a nonsense of the verdict.
Yes she jumped for joy winning GBP 1 pound whilst the worldwide media had her (and Omid) caught. That is why the sussexsquad were so happy with NDA Jason.
Come on now.
Quote from: Curryong on September 20, 2022, 02:44:20 PM
Does anyone know if the family keeps the next week of mourning together? I the article about Harry and Meghan staying and another one saying King Charles along w/ Queen Camilla are headed to Scotland, so if there isn't anymore family stuff, I wonder if they'll be headed home today or tomorrow. Quote.
I don?t think the family have any more engagements together until after the period of mourning is over. Each will just have a time of reflection and relaxation with their own spouses and families. King Charles will indeed be in his beloved Scottish home and I think the Sussexes will be back in California by tomorrow. They must be missing their little ones so much.
I see, we'll, I'm on airport picture watch.
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 04:11:25 PM
Yes she jumped for joy winning GBP 1 pound whilst the worldwide media had her (and Omid) caught. That is why the sussexsquad were so happy with NDA Jason.
Come on now.
And if we're going to try and use the 1 pound to put her down as a snub, let's make sure the information is correct. Yes, she won 1 pound but let's also add the context of, she it was a symbolic 1 pound that SHE asked for and won for her privacy (something that Taylor Swift did, it was more about the principal than anything.)
And while the tabloids were happy to lead she only one 1 pound as they gleefully danced around, let's not forget the real-payout from her copy right case was much higher. this is quoted from The Washington Post (who also took note of how the headline tried to read + the fact that the paper was bruised they published their apology on boxing day, in the smallest print possible.)
"The sums awarded in British cases are usually dwarfed by legal fees, which can easily balloon into the hundreds of thousands. Meghan is set to receive ?300,000 ($406,000) in legal fees by Friday, according to a court order, an installment for what could be a much larger figure. In England, the default is for the loser?s side to pay a substantial portion of the winner?s legal fees, which in this case is estimated to be over $2 million."
Meghan receives ?1 award in tabloid lawsuit but that?s not all - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/06/meghan-markle-court-case-privacy-daily-mail/)
So, she's dancing with a little bit more than 1 pound while her reputation is supposedly ruined (which it isn't and I think that upsets a few people, especially in the British Media, they've tried hard since 2016 to discredit her and even if her public flubs, the support is there)
Symbolic yes, privacy she was caught thanks to Jason.
Yep! And that wasn't what I pushed back on.
Clearly her interviews don't count, Oprah, The Cut, Spotify. It's subjective or misremembering. A preferred word for lying.
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 05:28:02 PM
Clearly her interviews don't count, Oprah, The Cut, Spotify. It's subjective or misremembering. A preferred word for lying.
Times up, a Jane Doe would be Juged with ''perjury'' Objective facts. But since the MM/DM set a precedent.
Jane Doe can future fight Tooth and Nail, I misremembered.
Perjury Act 1911 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6#:~:text=E%2BW),-If%20any%20person&text=(b)which%20is%20false%20in,or%20a%20fine%20or%20both.%5D
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 06:00:08 PM
Times up, a Jane Doe would be Juged with ''perjury'' Objective facts. But since the MM/DM set a precedent.
Jane Doe can future fight Tooth and Nail, I misremembered.
Perjury Act 1911 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6#:~:text=E%2BW),-If%20any%20person&text=(b)which%20is%20false%20in,or%20a%20fine%20or%20both.%5D
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
You are misreading the Perjury Act. This Act refers to witnesses to an act, or in civil cases a libel, not to the plaintiff in a civil suit. Meghan was the Plaintiff in this action, not a witness to whatever actions were taken by Jason or others. The Act above which you?ve quoted does not refer to Plaintiffs in Civil actions or Defendants in criminal ones, and that is deliberate.
And Meghan apologised for misremembering but won the suit anyway, with costs awarded against the newspaper group, as has already been noted.
So in the United Kingdom a ''plaintiff'' CAN commit perjury. :laugh:
Just take a look at this famous libel case that occurred in the UK earlier this year. Rebecca lost that case against Colleen Rooney but the judge did not suggest that either woman had told the exact truth in all circumstances while giving evidence. Civil cases operate on ?a balance of probabilities? rather than in criminal law. In civil cases the Plaintiff?s demeanour comes into play, but note that Colleen Rooney, the defendant, won the case but did not serve any time for perjury. Nor, if Rebecca had won the case, would she have been charged with perjury.
Rebekah Vardy versus Coleen Rooney libel trial: Day one court report (https://pressgazette.co.uk/rebekah-vardy-coleen-rooney-libel-trial/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61719250
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-121026.pdf
There have been cases of course were litigants have faced criminal prosecution after being featured in libel suits. However that has only majorly occurred when it is perceived that such a litigant has seriously broken criminal law, such as the prosecution of Oscar Wilde after the failure of his libel case. Also the Tichbourne Claimant.
However, in most Civil suits in England the Courts use common sense. From the above.
?The English cases however reveal more than one approach. The recent English cases also reflect the influence of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the overriding objective under those rules of dealing with cases justly, in a way which is proportionate to the amount of money involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of each litigant.?
And that is moot anyway as Meghan won her case. In other words the judge believed her version of events (in spite of her apology for misremembering) rather than the newspaper groups, and awarded her costs accordingly.
@changemhysoul I find your post refreshing! Great response to my post! :flower:
Quote from: Curryong on September 20, 2022, 07:23:08 PM
Just take a look at this famous libel case that occurred in the UK earlier this year. Rebecca lost that case against Colleen Rooney but the judge did not suggest that either woman had told the exact truth in all circumstances while giving evidence. Civil cases operate on ?a balance of probabilities? rather than in criminal law. In civil cases the Plaintiff?s demeanour comes into play, but note that Colleen Rooney, the defendant, won the case but did not serve any time for perjury. Nor, if Rebecca had won the case, would she have been charged with perjury.
Rebekah Vardy versus Coleen Rooney libel trial: Day one court report (https://pressgazette.co.uk/rebekah-vardy-coleen-rooney-libel-trial/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61719250
See what I said Jane Doe Rebekah lost her case and has to pay approx USD 8 Million to the other non entity Coleen. I followed a comprehensive Youtuber on the case the Plaintiff LIED!
Quote from: wannable on September 20, 2022, 10:28:10 PM
See what I said Jane Doe Rebekah lost her case and has to pay approx USD 8 Million to the other non entity Coleen. I followed a comprehensive Youtuber on the case the Plaintiff LIED!
That case was decided on the balance of probability, like all civil cases. And it?s irrelevant how many YouTubers were being followed. Neither woman was charged with perjury as you insisted Meghan and others should be.
And the newspaper group had to pay huge amounts of costs and damages to Meghan, who won the two parts of her case, just as Rebekah has had to pay costs etc to Colleen.
Transparent as it goes, Rebekah filed as the plaintiff against Coleen, and she lost, her case was that She said her 'truth' (s) which turned out to be lies.
It's not complicated.
Quote from: wannable on September 21, 2022, 12:16:21 PM
Transparent as it goes, Rebekah filed as the plaintiff against Coleen, and she lost, her case was that She said her 'truth' (s) which turned out to be lies.
It's not complicated.
No it?s not complicated. Rebekah filed a suit against Colleen Rooney and lost because in the judge?s view her evidence was less credible than Colleen Rooney?s. Nevertheless, In spite of lies, under English law Colleen has not been charged with perjury, nor will she be.
Meghan filed a suit against the newspaper group as a plaintiff, and in the judge?s view her evidence (in spite of the misremembering you seem to place real emphasis on) was more credible than the newspaper group?s. And she won on both counts.
Quote from: Blue Clover on September 20, 2022, 08:59:58 PM
@changemhysoul I find your post refreshing! Great response to my post! :flower:
A bit of it got moved, that's why I'm replying here but no problem!
Have Harry and Meghan done things that I don't fully agree with? Sure, do I think they could've done something's differently, yeah but overall, I get why it happened and I don't believe the family as a whole is as innocent and guilt free and H&M are just these horrible people as much as people want to believe.
But yeah, as far as Omid and the lawsuit and etc, sure, call Omid her friend but use the same language for the other RR's who have far more deeper ties than Omid already will but thank you for taking in my post and at least understanding a different perspective, I don't expect most to agree.
(And for the mods, I guess this could be moved back to the other thread? I'm not sure, as this part of the post wasn't really about the lawsuit but if it still applies, ignore me!)
Quote from: Curryong on September 21, 2022, 01:12:12 PM
No it?s not complicated. Rebekah filed a suit against Colleen Rooney and lost because in the judge?s view her evidence was less credible than Colleen Rooney?s. Nevertheless, In spite of lies, under English law Colleen has not been charged with perjury, nor will she be.
Meghan filed a suit against the newspaper group as a plaintiff, and in the judge?s view her evidence (in spite of the misremembering you seem to place real emphasis on) was more credible than the newspaper group?s. And she won on both counts.
Coleen had solid irrefutable evidence. Someone was leaking to the press, she devised a plan to find out who the leaker was, bingo. Very simple: she did a William and Kate when they were dating/single, someone in the circle was leaking, they said to each of their friends a different make believe of their '
whereabouts', caught. Coleen did exactly that maneuver.
Meghan filed a suit as the plaintiff, the ''misremembering'' is what ruined her reputation (manipulating, when a person does collaborate with a book, she manipulated her letter to her father, he didn't mention about it until she did like 8 months later stating she knew he would share but initially he hadn't, she triggered him to share by going to People magazine stating horrible things about her father) got her a symbolic win, they won't charge her because she's a member of the British Royal Family.
^ I also get why it happened as a whole, Meghan didn't get rid of several key employees when she got engaged to Harry, she retained them, these key employees registered brands, websites, business companies interestingly since 2018 with names attached to royalty. It doesn't sound or look innocent.
For the time being, let's keep all of the discussion regarding the Sussexes' legal action in this thread. I don't mind the introduction of the recent legal action but let's keep the thread focused upon the Sussexes.
IF she had registered with the per usual 2-3 lawyer firms (Magic Circle) of the British Royal Family and in the United Kingdom and the wording of the lawyers worldwide, then it is innocent. All senior members have their titles and possibly anything monarchy or royal related to their 'name' registered by the Magic Circle.
Memory of an elephant: William and Kate registered immediately after the Queen gave them the Duke and Duchess titles by the Firm's lawyers. Including anything that will be sold exclusively in the Royal Collection, including Kate's photography copyrights that are distributed for free to the royal rota who work for a media outlet, basically worldwide, she doesn't commercialize the photographs for her own gain.
Meghan won her case against the newspaper companies. And as such there is no way that she would ever have been charged with perjury. I am getting very tired of going round and round the mulberry bush with you.
You inferred that Meghan lied and therefore she should have been charged with perjury. I replied that she won her case and therefore the judge came down on her side. She would not have been charged with perjury as you originally averred had she lost, and as the winner of her suit it would have been impossible for her to have been charged with anything. And it is not merely a symbolic win if you are receiving huge costs awarded to you.
And Colleen isn?t a member of the BRF and she hasn?t been charged with perjury either.
And that?s my last word on it. If you disagree with the verdict, and it?s plain that you do, then take it up with the legal authorities in England.
It's a discussion forum, no need to take it up to official legal entities. By George, we are all stating opinions on the matter.
The book collab in the court was used as evidence that she did manipulate her way in ref to the letter to her father. A symbolic win of GBP 1 pound versus Coleen's win, and her ex friend of the football WAG team ended up paying USD 8 million, there's a huge difference. A celebration difference when checking your bank account.
72 Female MP's: a political failed maneuver, 4/5 didn't make it in the elections like 5 days later, most of them were Labour Party, the Conservatives won almost landslide.
Quote from: wannable on September 21, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
It's a discussion forum, no need to take it up to official legal entities. By George, we are all stating opinions on the matter.
The book collab in the court was used as evidence that she did manipulate her way in ref to the letter to her father. A symbolic win of GBP 1 pound versus Coleen's win, and her ex friend of the football WAG team ended up paying USD 8 million, there's a huge difference. A celebration difference when checking your bank account.
72 Female MP's: a political failed maneuver, 4/5 didn't make it in the elections like 5 days later, most of them were Labour Party, the Conservatives won almost landslide.
Well, that?s politics! And the Conservatives certainly wont be winning by a landslide at the next election. Nor did those Labour candidates lose their seats because of Meghan. There was a swing to the Conservatives nation-wide.
Meghan received huge damages and costs from the newspaper group. It wasn?t just one pound. Previous posts, not just by me, have pointed that out. And I am not arguing, debating the court case won by Meghan any more!
Quote from: wannable on September 21, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
It's a discussion forum, no need to take it up to official legal entities. By George, we are all stating opinions on the matter.
The book collab in the court was used as evidence that she did manipulate her way in ref to the letter to her father. A symbolic win of GBP 1 pound versus Coleen's win, and her ex friend of the football WAG team ended up paying USD 8 million, there's a huge difference. A celebration difference when checking your bank account.
72 Female MP's: a political failed maneuver, 4/5 didn't make it in the elections like 5 days later, most of them were Labour Party, the Conservatives won almost landslide.
Meghan didn't manipulate anything with her father. She tried to contact him, he got the letter than went on TV and complained that he didn't hear from her. Then her friends went to people and corrected that but in the end, if that's what you believe and how you feel, whatever.
But please stop pushing the whole, she only one 1 pound when we know that she won more than that. You can dislike her and admit that she won more money at the same time instead using the 1 pound as a way to put her down.
Stating a fact, 72 MP which devised a few days before a national election, the 3 ladies that devised it lost, the majority except for a handful made it. BTW, the majority were young guns that missed the opportunity to do and focus on something significant within their own community, hence they failed to be reelected.
She is manipulative, too much evidence of it, Tom Bower.
Quote from: wannable on September 21, 2022, 02:41:07 PM
Stating a fact, 72 MP which devised a few days before a national election, the 3 ladies that devised it lost, the majority except for a handful made it. BTW, the majority were young guns that missed the opportunity to do and focus on something significant within their own community, hence they failed to be reelected.
She is manipulative, too much evidence of it, Tom Bower.
Idk what that female's MP's election's have to do with anything but okay?
And you're siting Bower as a source, I understand now.
Think's for conversing with me for the most part.
Everything has to do, when they posted their document a few days within a week of the elections, their electoral constituency bombarded each one of them with a majority of bad messages unrelated to Meghan (relegated to nothing) criticizing their performance during their tenure, not good, it backfired. All MP's have an official Twitter account to keep their constituents updated with their work, these official twitter accounts were heavily bombarded from constituents making their own selfy video making bullet points of promises never realised, works that they were suppose to do, some of them were called lazy, they didn't do nothing, that is really bad I read it all, checked and hence I said the majority are young ladies who failed, matter of fact, the old handful ladies were the only ones who were reelected, experience. In fact the five ol' experienced politicians that made it had no comments in their official account. It was almost better than a survey.
Tom Bower only wrote where he had evidence and recordings from the contributors, his second part will have more contributors who didn't want to speak out but are willing now. He also has receipts of all Meghan's lies i.e. university payments from her father's bank account.
Gotcha and thanks for letting me know!
Quote from: wannable on September 21, 2022, 03:31:32 PM
Everything has to do, when they posted their document a few days within a week of the elections, their electoral constituency bombarded each one of them with a majority of bad messages unrelated to Meghan (relegated to nothing) criticizing their performance during their tenure, not good, it backfired. All MP's have an official Twitter account to keep their constituents updated with their work, these official twitter accounts were heavily bombarded from constituents making their own selfy video making bullet points of promises never realised, works that they were suppose to do, some of them were called lazy, they didn't do nothing, that is really bad I read it all, checked and hence I said the majority are young ladies who failed, matter of fact, the old handful ladies were the only ones who were reelected, experience. In fact the five ol' experienced politicians that made it had no comments in their official account. It was almost better than a survey.
Tom Bower only wrote where he had evidence and recordings from the contributers, his second part will have more contributers who didn't want to speak out but are willing now. He also has receipts of all Meghan's lies i.e. university payments from her father's bank account.
And what about all the other MPs who were not re-elected who didn?t sign the document (and it was female MPs from across Party lines who signed the document of support for her) and expressed no opinion on Meghan? Is their loss Meghan?s fault as well? This entire argument is completely ridiculous.
And my opinion of Tom Bower is well known. I refuse to debate what he allegedly has coming up in his latest book. Imo he?s made enough money out of Meghan to satisfy even him.
And btw Bower didn?t pull the punches over Charles?s vanity, self obsession, habit of blaming others etc in his book on the then POW that?s in my library either. I might look it up and give it chapter and verse here in the future.
I couldn't possibly tell about the MP's who didn't sign (that is the whole point, didn't sign, didn't get the media publicity in front page news so nobody knows who they are BUT THE ONES THAT SIGNED, all over the news :laugh: ). Basically the ones who signed had their @twitterofficial in the comment section. Click and that is where I noted the heavy bombarding. Then election day, lost. Of course there are also ''dedicated'' royal watchers with the list and an x on who didn't make it. Both sides have ''dedicated'' receipt fans.
I've never and will never force anyone to debate. Each to its own. He is widely known to be a shrewd lawyer, hence his 'way' of working a book.
New law suit for Harry, Elton John and others. Privacy issues etc. against certain rotten tabloids.
Prince Harry, Elton John sue major U.K. media group for ?gross? privacy breach - National | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/9184547/prince-harry-elton-john-lawsuit-daily-mail-associated-newspapers/)
Several high-profile figures, including the U.K.?s Prince Harry and singer Elton John, are suing the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper in Britain, alleging phone tapping and other major breaches of privacy.
Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon and John?s husband, David Furnish, are among others listed in the lawsuits against Associated Newspapers, reports Reuters.
According to Variety, which obtained the court documents, there are three lawsuits in total filed in London?s High Court.
Why Prince Harry, Elton John are suing these newspapers | SBS News (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-reason-prince-harry-and-elton-john-are-suing-these-newspapers/vgc4a398b)
Quote from: Curryong on October 12, 2022, 10:07:43 PM
Thanks. Glad to be back!
Same! I am also happy to be back!
Quote from: Curryong on October 12, 2022, 09:59:30 PM
New law suit for Harry, Elton John and others. Privacy issues etc. against certain rotten tabloids.
Prince Harry, Elton John sue major U.K. media group for ?gross? privacy breach - National | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/9184547/prince-harry-elton-john-lawsuit-daily-mail-associated-newspapers/)
Several high-profile figures, including the U.K.?s Prince Harry and singer Elton John, are suing the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper in Britain, alleging phone tapping and other major breaches of privacy.
Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon and John?s husband, David Furnish, are among others listed in the lawsuits against Associated Newspapers, reports Reuters.
According to Variety, which obtained the court documents, there are three lawsuits in total filed in London?s High Court.
Why Prince Harry, Elton John are suing these newspapers | SBS News (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-reason-prince-harry-and-elton-john-are-suing-these-newspapers/vgc4a398b)
If it turns out that they are or were wire taping, it will be more than just a legal suit. That's a criminal offence.
Daily Mail seeks to delay court allegations of high-profile breaches of privacy | Daily Mail | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/02/daily-mail-seeks-to-delay-court-allegations-of-high-profile-breaches-of-privacy)
Running scared or just poking the bear?
Considering what has been shared with
Harry and Meghan as well as
Spare, this could be an interesting civil case.
Prince Harry's Lawyers Say He's a 'Very Private Person' Amid Memoir Storm (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-very-private-person-lawyers-memoir-spare-1771357)
QuotePrince Harry is suing a tabloid for phone hacking and spilling his private information and is "particularly distressed because he is a very private person," his lawyers said in a court filing obtained by Newsweek.
The account may prove controversial in light of Harry's explosive and deeply personal revelations not only about his own life but also his family's in his new memoir.
Spare details how Prince Harry did drugs including *** and magic mushrooms, lost his virginity in a field behind a pub and had frostbite on his penis during Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding after a 200-mile trek through the North Pole.
He opened up about family members too, revealing Prince Charles' words to him and William after Prince Philip's funeral, William's anger after Meghan Markle said Kate Middleton had "baby brain" and Princess Charlotte's tears over her "baggy" flower girl dress before Harry and Meghan's wedding.
Prince Harry's lawyers blast unlawful press intrusion
Harry is suing Mirror Group Newspapers at the High Court in London on allegations of phone hacking based on a series of payments to private investigators for work on its coverage of his life, between 1996 and 2011. The company denies the allegations.
Newsweek subscription offers >
The lawsuit accuses the newspaper group, which publishes the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People in Britain, of targeting the prince and those close to him using unlawful techniques.
Among those mentioned are Prince William, Kate Middleton, King Charles III, Princess Diana, and Harry's ex-girlfriends, including Chelsey Davy and Caroline Flack.
A court filing seen by Newsweek reads: "[Prince Harry] was upset at the time that the Articles were published, as will be further amplified in his evidence witness statements. He was particularly distressed because he is a very private person and the intrusion spanned every area of his life, from an extremely early age."
His lawyers added: "The fact that private information was appearing about [Prince Harry], which he did not know the source of, caused him to be paranoid and to distrust all those around him including his close friends. This put an enormous strain on his relationships and caused [Prince Harry] to be especially cautious about forming new ones.
"The fact that, as he has since discovered, they were only published because they either originated from or were verified by information obtained in this unlawful way, has caused him substantial upset."
The document was served on September 6, a month after Harry and Meghan completed their final Netflix interviews and after Harry's book would likely already have gone through several drafts.
However, the filing was not initially publicly accessible and has only just been made available to Newsweek.
Mirror Group Newspapers responded in their own filing, also seen by Newsweek, saying: "It is denied that journalists for whom the Defendant was responsible accessed [Prince Harry's] voicemail messages."
The Mirror Group's lawyers admit it instructed "private investigators to unlawfully obtain private information about [Prince Harry]" on a single occasion, based on a ?75 ($89) invoice related to a story about the royal and nightclub Chinawhites, though it is not known what the information was. However, they denied a shopping list of allegations by Harry.
Newsweek reached out to both sides for comment.
I am shocked Harry has filed a lawsuit against King Charles for his share he feels entitled to of money from the Duchys. Lol, why not file this lawsuit. Sussex love lawsuits.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on January 09, 2023, 03:52:27 AM
I am shocked Harry has filed a lawsuit against King Charles for his share he feels entitled to of money from the Duchys. Lol, why not file this lawsuit. Sussex love lawsuits.
Before he left his royal work and moved to the USA he was 100% supported by the Duchy of Cornwall, according to what I have read. I wonder why he would expect to continue to receive support when he left. And he did state when leaving that they wanted to earn their own living.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on January 09, 2023, 08:24:27 PM
Before he left his royal work and moved to the USA he was 100% supported by the Duchy of Cornwall, according to what I have read. I wonder why he would expect to continue to receive support when he left. And he did state when leaving that they wanted to earn their own living.
Harry and Meghan (and William and Kate) received an allowance from Charles, the exact details of which have never been divulged. It appears, from Harry?s recent remarks, to have been composed of ?gifts? ie the wardrobes of both women when they were on official duties, and financial upkeep for their offices (at KP and for Harry and Meghan later, after the offices split at BP.)
There appears to have been some help with the household expenses, and it appears from the annual July accounts of Duchy expenses that the whole thing (office expenses, wardrobe, sundries for their private household) was around five million pounds a year after Harry?s marriage. How that was divided between the two couples we don?t know. However William had the larger household, two children and therefore more expenses, H+M would have had some start up costs ie help with the interior renovations of FC. before they moved in.
However, both men received salaries while they were in the Armed Services. It was always claimed by the Press Office that an allowance from Charles replaced that while the Princes used most of their salaries on charitable endeavours but we don?t know that for sure as it has never been stated.
However, from what I have read both men were independent from Charles in one important way. They both received yearly monies from their investments of the money left to them by their mother from the age of 21. They received full usage of this inheritance, believed to be about 12 million in total for Harry and a bit less for William as he would be Prince of Wales, when each of them reached thirty. I read that William was spending some of the annual profits from those investments on his household such as employing Nanny Maria and an equerry who looked after his clothing, plus other household sundries.
None of that speaks to Charles maintaining either couple 100% financially. Both couples of course received security from Home Office accounts and Sovereign Grant money for transport and other expenses while performing royal engagements. Charles was not involved in any of that.
Quote from: TLLK on January 06, 2023, 10:49:48 PM
Considering what has been shared with Harry and Meghan as well as Spare, this could be an interesting civil case.
Prince Harry's Lawyers Say He's a 'Very Private Person' Amid Memoir Storm (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-very-private-person-lawyers-memoir-spare-1771357)
This case however is based solely on phone hacking that occurred between 2006 and 2011. As far as I am aware Harry wasn?t sharing any details of his private life during those years in interviews or anywhere else.
These were the years too in which he and his girlfriend Chelsy Davy would be regularly ringing each other and sharing confidences about their romance, including any spats, talking about friends etc. The Press would certainly be interested in that sort of thing, especially as Harry never spoke about Chelsy in any interviews.
Suing for security and Duchy moneys means Harry is short of being capable of paying it for himself and is not above satisfaction with the 'independent moneys' he has made for himself.
Quote from: Curryong on January 09, 2023, 11:00:24 PM
Harry and Meghan (and William and Kate) received an allowance from Charles, the exact details of which have never been divulged. It appears, from Harry?s recent remarks, to have been composed of ?gifts? ie the wardrobes of both women when they were on official duties, and financial upkeep for their offices (at KP and for Harry and Meghan later, after the offices split at BP.)
There appears to have been some help with the household expenses, and it appears from the annual July accounts of Duchy expenses that the whole thing (office expenses, wardrobe, sundries for their private household) was around five million pounds a year after Harry?s marriage. How that was divided between the two couples we don?t know. However William had the larger household, two children and therefore more expenses, H+M would have had some start up costs ie help with the interior renovations of FC. before they moved in.
However, both men received salaries while they were in the Armed Services. It was always claimed by the Press Office that an allowance from Charles replaced that while the Princes used most of their salaries on charitable endeavours but we don?t know that for sure as it has never been stated.
However, from what I have read both men were independent from Charles in one important way. They both received yearly monies from their investments of the money left to them by their mother from the age of 21. They received full usage of this inheritance, believed to be about 12 million in total for Harry and a bit less for William as he would be Prince of Wales, when each of them reached thirty. I read that William was spending some of the annual profits from those investments on his household such as employing Nanny Maria and an equerry who looked after his clothing, plus other household sundries.
None of that speaks to Charles maintaining either couple 100% financially. Both couples of course received security from Home Office accounts and Sovereign Grant money for transport and other expenses while performing royal engagements. Charles was not involved in any of that.
Thank you, Curryong, for that information. I am constantly amazed at the knowledge that you and many others on the Royal Forum Index have! I am glad he has a generous inheritance, as, except for his military pay, which I assume he no longer receives, the other financial arrangements were based on his royal work. But why would he expect anything more from his father except an inheritance many years (we hope) from now? And they did say upon leaving that they wanted to be financially independent.
From the integrated annual reports Duchy of Cornwall 2019
Page 22 It couldn't be clearer, the auditors report. 95% Duchy 5% Sovereing Grant = 100% paid off living, whatever each one did.
The income is used to fund the personal and professional expenditure of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, including staff, charitable work and public duties. The income from the Duchy estate does not cover official travel or maintenance of Royal residences, which are funded by the Sovereign Grant.
(Extra note: When Harry says in his book that Nottingham Cottage furniture was funded by Meghan's credit card, he doesn't add the part of being repaid by expense report. Neil Sean said last night he was shown receipts by his source in KP that Meghan was repaid by expense report 100% and more yet, Doria was also paid with an undisclosed motive. Neil also said previous to this ^ comment, the couple were offered to view furniture, art, etc at the royal collection, they didn't like nothing! It was their Ikea choice. Charles, William Camilla and Kate use debit or credit cards, their secretaries prepare expense report to be refunded).
Page 5 Access to Mental Health :wink:
Well-being awareness
Inspired by The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke of Sussex?s Heads Together campaign, the Duchy?s Staff Consultative Committee launch mental health and well-being awareness sessions to help Duchy of Cornwall employees learn how to best look after their own mental well-being and recognise if someone else may be feeling unwell.
It is thought that the Judicial review might begin in April 2023. However a ruling might not come in time for the King's Coronation on May 6, 2023. Should the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accept the invitation, they would receive taxpayer funded protection with armed security personnel much like they did for the late Queen's Jubilee and her funeral as these are considered official duties. Prince Harry also received full protection when he was in the UK for the 2021 funeral of the DoE.
QuoteHarry, 38, says his family is unsafe in the UK despite armed royal protection for official events and while at Frogmore Cottage in the grounds of Windsor Castle.
It is believed his Home Office case may go before the High Court in early April.
Prince Harry's legal fight has cost UK taxpayers ?300k as he continues to moan about removal of his police protection | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21440963/prince-harry-cost-taxpayers-300k-police-protection/)
QuoteIt has already rumbled on for 18 months and a Freedom of Information Request shows it has so far cost ?296,882.87 to defend.
That includes ?199,978.52 on legal department costs, ?93,268 on general counsel and ?660 for court fees.
The Government said it would ?not be appropriate? to comment on proceedings.
In fact, as The Sun knows very well, Harry had every right to challenge the decision to deny he and his family security if he wished to. And a judge allowed the action. He won the right to challenge it. If the Sun wants to disagree with that decision then they can do so.
Instead, they carry on moaning about tax payers this and tax payers that. The tabloids, and their billionaire proprietors, care for British taxpayers is around the same as the care they have for those people in the public eye that they regularly attack each week, that is less than zero.
Prince Harry wins bid to bring High Court challenge against the Home Office after being denied police protection | US News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-wins-bid-to-bring-high-court-challenge-against-the-home-office-after-being-denied-police-protection-12656889)
Well, this?ll go down in the UK like a lead balloon.
Prince Harry lawsuit against newspaper publisher set for May trial
Prince Harry lawsuit against newspaper publisher set for May trial | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-lawsuit-against-newspaper-publisher-set-may-trial-2023-03-08/)
Prince Harry will be in at the trial in person, May 9th to speak as an witness. So he'll be in the UK.
Prince Harry to Appear in Person in Phone Hacking Court Case as ?Teflon Piers? Faces ?Both Barrels? ? Byline Times (https://bylinetimes.com/2023/03/16/prince-harry-to-appear-in-person-in-phone-hacking-court-case-as-teflon-piers-faces-both-barrels/)
I hope he is cleaning up, the rumor is he may be required a drug test.
Court-ordered drug tests are performed every day across the UK....I read the rumors here.
Well, I've seen no rumors about that and it wasn't something mentioned in the article so I'm sure he'll be fine.
Sounds more that's something the people pushing these rumors want so.....they can have another gotcha or some other equally unhinged thing
Thanks for the update
@changemhysoul .
^ Np
Prince Harry Sues Tabloid For Defamation Over Security Story | HuffPost Entertainment (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-harry-tabloid-defamation-security_n_64145e7be4b0fef152439050?utm_campaign=share_twitter&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004)
QuoteLONDON (AP) ? Lawyers for Prince Harry asked a judge Friday to rule that a tabloid newspaper libeled the British royal with an article about his quest for police protection when he and his family visit the U.K.
Harry is suing Mail on Sunday publisher Associated Newspapers Ltd. over an article alleging he tried to hush up his separate legal challenge over the British government?s refusal to let him pay for police security.
During a hearing at the High Court in London, Harry?s lead attorney asked Judge Matthew Nickin either to strike out the publisher?s defense or to deliver a summary judgment, which would be a ruling in the prince?s favor without going to trial.
Lawyer Justin Rushbrooke said the facts did not support the publisher?s ?substantive pleaded defense? that the article expressed an ?honest opinion.?
Harry was not in court for the hearing. The prince, also known as the Duke of Sussex, and his wife, Meghan, lost their publicly funded U.K. police protection when they stepped down as senior working royals and moved to North America in 2020.
Another day, so another lawsuit. Sad n funny. Just comical.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 16, 2023, 06:04:45 PM
Well, I've seen no rumors about that and it wasn't something mentioned in the article so I'm sure he'll be fine.
Sounds more that's something the people pushing these rumors want so.....they can have another gotcha or some other equally unhinged thing
I'd agree the rumor is unhinged IF Harry didn't take drugs, but in his latest interview, he said he will take illegal drugs (Illegal in the UK) forever. So the notion of a lawyer site stating that up and down the country courts DO order witnesses that are suspected of or have publicly displayed drug and substance abuse, have to take a drug test.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 17, 2023, 07:14:59 PM
Another day, so another lawsuit. Sad n funny. Just comical.
It's not another day, another lawsuit...it's the same from the same on-going case.
I know because Harry and Meghan fight for themselves that people want to say they sue for everything but they don't. Meghan's letter to her father, that was sue worthy because the Daily Mail only published parts that were nasty, the pap photos of Archie (which other royals have taken to lawyers for), The spin that Harry didn't offer to pay for his security and etc. They haven't sued over stuff that was actually silly, like say, South Park.
Still, it's not another lawsuit, it's an on-going on.
I guess this is what Harry wanted the RF to do for him and Meghan? Boy that would have gone down like a lead balloon with the public. But I do wonder whether he thinks the RF is planting these stories too?
I recall they've had 10 lawsuits in 3 years, that averages to 3.3 per year.
Anyway, here's a comprehensive from the Telegraph about Harry's lawsuit with Associated press in reference to his other lawsuit with HM Home Office. If you don't want to read it, Harry claims he wrote a letter to the Queen's secretary offering to pay security once he had a job. Associated Press said they didn't say that, they wrote that he didn't offer that to the corresponding responsible RAVEC.
Duke of Sussex argued he could not pay for private security until he had a job (https://archive.ph/y1HA0)
*****
Plus the third ''active'' lawsuit in reference to phone hacking.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 17, 2023, 07:39:09 PM
They haven't sued over stuff that was actually silly, like say, South Park.
Silly, maybe, but there were elements of defamation as they never actually said they wanted privacy. Although, in the US, you?ll get absolutely nowhere suing for slander and libel.
Quote from: wannable on March 17, 2023, 07:37:31 PM
I'd agree the rumor is unhinged IF Harry didn't take drugs, but in his latest interview, he said he will take illegal drugs (Illegal in the UK) forever. So the notion of a lawyer site stating that up and down the country courts DO order witnesses that are suspected of or have publicly displayed drug and substance abuse, have to take a drug test.
Fair enough. I disagree with you.
I'm sure there is more nuance because as you stated (Illegal in the UK), and they're 'drugs' for a proven method that's being overseen by a professional. Not, doing coke off the floors of a hotel bathroom. So, unhinged rumors of people don't like him (which is also fair, no one has too) because they want to see him fail or grab a gotcha because he's not going as fast or how they want. And he's actually willing to stand up to the press.
The mushroom tea drug IS illegal in the UK. According to that UK law site, courts DO require drug tests when it is suspected or publicly known person involved in a case.
Quote from: wannable on March 17, 2023, 07:45:25 PM
I recall they've had 10 lawsuits in 3 years, that averages to 3.3 per year.
Anyway, here's a comprehensive from the Telegraph about Harry's lawsuit with Associated press in reference to his other lawsuit with HM Home Office. If you don't want to read it, Harry claims he wrote a letter to the Queen's secretary offering to pay security once he had a job. Associated Press said they didn't say that, they wrote that he didn't offer that to the corresponding responsible RAVEC.
Duke of Sussex argued he could not pay for private security until he had a job (https://archive.ph/y1HA0)
*****
Plus the third ''active'' lawsuit in reference to phone hacking.
I've been here very little this past 2 weeks, I'm sure I also read a comprehensive of the third case phone hacking in the Times or Telegraph. Will search it.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 17, 2023, 07:45:39 PM
Silly, maybe, but there were elements of defamation as they never actually said they wanted privacy. Although, in the US, you?ll get absolutely nowhere suing for slander and libel.
And....because...it's South Park. I didn't even realize South Park was airing with new episodes until this happened. But 10x worse has been said of them or done to them by the media (see the BBC skit, darkening Meghan's skin to make her a knife wielding weapon user) but it's South Park and lowbrow, mocking humor is what has made them big. (Them mocking people who are obsessed over disliking/hating/constantly talking about Harry & Meghan are 10x more annoying than Harry & Meghan themselves, flew over a lot of people's heads and I suspect that's the real reason why Harry & Meghan don't care. They weren't the only people being mocked it.)
They've only used one US based company I think? Which was based around Archie. Thankfully, US media while they might poke or talk here and there. Largely, they don't care about the couple unless it's something and are less prone to make up lies and etc, even their the headlines aren't as....misleading and sensationalized about them.
Sure, they've had 10 lawsuits, I don't care about that.
It's just not another day, another lawsuit, it's an on-going on. I wanted to clear that up.
They will NEVER sue South Park, the latter is too smart, IOW they never mentioned Prince Harry or Duchess Meghan.
Their cartoon was in reference to a Dumb and Stupid Prince and Princess (yes with the liking resemblance of the couple) or the 'wife'.
IF they sue, Harry and Meghan will reinforce to the public that they ''officially'' agree it was in reference to them. So no.
So far 3 active court cases all in the UK.
^ 10 cases, with 3 per year is practically a daily thing, since it takes from 1 to 2 years per case/lawyers working/courts working hence the costs privately/tax payers. In that order with the slash /.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 17, 2023, 07:53:12 PM
And....because...it's South Park. I didn't even realize South Park was airing with new episodes until this happened. But 10x worse has been said of them or done to them by the media (see the BBC skit, darkening Meghan's skin to make her a knife wielding weapon user) but it's South Park and lowbrow, mocking humor is what has made them big. (Them mocking people who are obsessed over disliking/hating/constantly talking about Harry & Meghan are 10x more annoying than Harry & Meghan themselves, flew over a lot of people's heads and I suspect that's the real reason why Harry & Meghan don't care. They weren't the only people being mocked it.)
They've only used one US based company I think? Which was based around Archie. Thankfully, US media while they might poke or talk here and there. Largely, they don't care about the couple unless it's something and are less prone to make up lies and etc, even their the headlines aren't as....misleading and sensationalized about them.
I could just as easily say ?And?it?s the Daily Mail?.? But that hasn?t stopped him. It?s the likelihood of them winning that?s significantly lower in the States. They?re criticized by conservative papers here and similar stuff is written here. And yet nothing.
^ True, the originator of the dig deeper into South Park was Fox News (USA). They were the ones that said that Harry's (team) called the producers of SP threatening to sue them, SP told him it's a cartoon about a Dumb and Stupid Prince and Princess with no direct mention. Fox News claimed they had the fact finder via telephone call to the producers, which was recorded as proof, so they can mention it in their news. That dig deeper breaking news was then purchased by international media, including the Daily Mail with its 10 million digital click readership. ETA: Not just anyone can call SP producers, one would need to have a contact, as I mentioned. That is how they reported the news 'our very good contact with the producers of South Park has told us the following Breaking News....''Harry called late at night to bla bla bla''.
Sometimes an article in the DM will mention the originator, most of the times the originator is mentioned in the footnote font size 6 :laugh:
Anyway the law in both countries is soooo different, I doubt the couple will ever sue in the USA.
2nd ETA: It's HBO who is suing Paramount in Ref to South Park. In the USA since 1 year ago after the pandemic many TV channels and streaming services are merging, so HBO wants a stake of South Park money making machine, because it is. This Adult Cartoon production makes loads of money making fun of public people, celebs and politicians. The merging and fusions are STILL complicated and not really of interest to this thread.
^Agreed. And trying to muzzle the press in this country? Ooof. I?d imagine their approval ratings would go even lower down the drain. Additionally, they live here now. I can imagine they don?t wanna overstay their welcome here by doing something that stupid.
Easy enough to attack the British press when you don?t actually live in England.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 18, 2023, 02:41:40 AM
^Agreed. And trying to muzzle the press in this country? Ooof. I?d imagine their approval ratings would go even lower down the drain. Additionally, they live here now. I can imagine they don?t wanna overstay their welcome here by doing something that stupid.
Easy enough to attack the British press when you don?t actually live in England.
Why is Harry ?trying to muzzle the Press?? With the exception of the argument with the Home Office about security the Sussexes have only commenced law suits against newspapers who have tried to hack private phone calls or rags who printed untruths about them, and they (Meghan) have won against the Fail.
Muzzle the Press by objecting to their own private calls being illegally listened to and then reported on! True Press freedoms there!
From Vanity Fair article. Last October but still very relevant.
In a separate but adjacent story, The Guardian reported that Murdoch?s Sun faces another eight phone-hacking cases that are ?working their way through the legal system.? Originally, phone-hacking revelations focused on Murdoch?s News of the World, which was shut down in 2011. (The following year came the findings of the Leveson Inquiry into British press practices; a long-awaited second installment of the inquiry, examining the relationship between British journalists and the police, was scuttled by Theresa May?s government in 2018, with widespread support from the newspapers.) The scandal, as many expected, did not remain confined to News of the World. Litigation eventually spread to The Sun, which has steadfastly denied phone hacking while still settling lawsuits alleging the practice. (Between News of the World and The Sun, Murdoch?s News Group Newspapers, a British division within News Corp, has paid out hundreds of millions of pounds to a veritable army of litigants.) Meanwhile, outside of Murdoch-world, the parent company of the Daily Mirror has been hit with dozens of claims as well.
In a press release issued through the law firm Hamlins on October 6, these individuals publicly claimed they were ?the victims of abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy? at the hands of Associated Newspapers, parent company of the Mail and its sister titles, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. More to the point, the press release alleges the ?hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people?s cars and homes?; the ?commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people?s live, private telephone calls whilst they were taking place?; and the ?accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means,? among other illegal practices.
At the very least, the so-called legal offensive from Harry and Co. is a thorn in the side of the Mail?s leadership. It has brought unwanted scrutiny just as the 126-year-old Daily Mail and General Trust is setting out on a new course as a private company under the direction of Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who was named CEO last month in addition to his role as chairman. (Lord Rothermere?s family have been stewards of the Daily Mail since its founding in 1896 by Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe and his brother Harold, 1st Viscount Rothermere.) The cases have also called into question the anticipated House of Lords peerage of Paul Dacre, the former longtime editor of the Mail who now serves as editor in chief of DMG Media, which oversees the Mail and its sister titles. ?I cannot be any more unequivocal,? Dacre told the Leveson Inquiry, ?[based on] all my inquiries and all the evidence I?ve received, and having spoken to the editor of my group: Our group did not hack phones, and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did.
Prince Harry and Co.?s ?Legal Offensive? Against the Daily Mail Sparks a New Chapter in the Phone-Hacking Saga | Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/10/prince-harry-daily-mail-phone-hacking)
Quote from: Curryong on March 18, 2023, 04:48:43 AM
Why is Harry ?trying to muzzle the Press?? With the exception of the argument with the Home Office about security the Sussexes have only commenced law suits against newspapers who have tried to hack private phone calls or rags who printed untruths about them, and they (Meghan) have won against the Fail.
Muzzle the Press by objecting to their own private calls being illegally listened to and then reported on! True Press freedoms there!
The article that the Daily Mail wrote is an opinion piece. Just like all those articles written in Vanity Fair or People that are complimentary of them. His claim is that they?re poisoning public opinion against him. And my rebuttal is that freedom of the press is freedom of the press. They don?t have to write complimentary things about you in opinion pieces.
Maybe you disagree about how far freedom of the press should extend, but here is the US it covers quite a lot because it?s embedded in the First Amendment to our Constitution. You have to prove that the person who wrote it did it with bad intent in mind. And that?s a tough ask. The press writes ?misleading? things isn?t enough here and an attempt to sue based on that claim would be seen as trying to muzzle the press because they don?t fawn over you. Because they certainly didn?t care to sue all those papers that wrote that RF was racist based on the words that came out of Meghan?s mouth.
And that was actually my point about them not suing here in the US. They?ve moved to a country in which the press is protected by law. So, proving libel here is more difficult than in the U.K. I?m not commenting on whether that is good or bad. I?m simply saying that in this new country they now live in, ?they?re injuring my reputation? is not going to be enough to get a judge to side with you. For goodness sake, the Enquirer writes lies all the time. It?s hard to prove the intent piece though. That?s why a lot of celebrities don?t bother suing. A) it gives even more attention to the thing you don?t want given attention and B) you?re likely to be wasting your money suing. It?s just what our press culture is.
That and the public that is already not terribly fond of your latest moves will not really receive that well. In my opinion, they?re cognizant of the laws here and are also aware of how the laws in the U.K. differ.
Meghan Markle Gets Boost in Sister Samantha's Libel Lawsuit (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-boost-sister-samantha-markle-libel-lawsuit-1789403)
Good news for Meghan.
However, the deadline has been pushed back to July 3, and the judge has now rejected Samantha Markle's efforts to compel Meghan to arrange the depositions, leaving the two sides to sort the issue out between them.
An order by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson read: "The defendant [Meghan] states that '[m]ost of the proposed non-party deponents have nothing to do with the statements at issue in the [plaintiffs first amended complaint].'"
The the other points above, the press don't have to write nice things but a line is drawn at racist dog whistles, thinly veiled threats & inciting hate and violence. The UK press, even the more "centered" ones are very good at doing that.
So they've never tried to muzzle the press. Meghan didn't sue because some random piece said they didn't like the fact that she kept touching her stomach, she used because they published her letter, to which she holds the copy-right. Harry didn't sue simply because they revealed that he was fighting for a judicial review but because they wrote it in such a way that were trying to incite hate against him.
Yes, the press has freedom and they should have freedom but it makes them dangerous when they use that power and freedom to try and control, incite violence and make people bend to them. Various writers have all but stated that one of them main reasons they're going after Meghan is because she didn't talk to them, she won't deal with them. That's a bully and they thought they'd be able to bully the Sussex's into giving in and letting them in...they only seceded in getting them to leave the country.
That's why their so mad, normally, they can bully people into compliance, someone actually stood up to them and they hate that they don't have the control over the two of them that they have over most of the other royals and media in the uk.
As for Sam, she should just thrown in the towel and it's not going to work out for her. If she loses, I don't think she has the money to pay for even half of Meghan's legal fees.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 23, 2023, 01:21:46 PM
Yes, the press has freedom and they should have freedom but it makes them dangerous when they use that power and freedom to try and control, incite violence and make people bend to them. Various writers have all but stated that one of them main reasons they're going after Meghan is because she didn't talk to them, she won't deal with them. That's a bully and they thought they'd be able to bully the Sussex's into giving in and letting them in...they only seceded in getting them to leave the country.
This is your opinion and I respect that. However, freedom of the press is litigated differently in different countries based on their existing laws. What is ?right? or ?fair? is not equivalent to what is ?legal.?
I said I think they sue when and where they think they can win. The reason I think that is because I don?t think they like any of it and they think all of it is bullying. However, they don?t sue for all of it because they simply wouldn?t win on a good majority of them, no matter how ?wrong? they find it to be.
And here in the US, where already their popularity has taken a nosedive, I think that muzzling the press is exactly how two people that share their most intimate moments on camera and print would be perceived if they sued for some of the things that the press have written here.
The hearing is for Harry's privacy case against Associated Newspapers. -
Prince Harry arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice as Duke of Sussex set for another legal battle (https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-arrives-at-the-royal-courts-of-justice-as-duke-of-sussex-set-for-another-legal-battle) -
Video: https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1640277338523852801?s=20
I'm happy, he managed to get in without them knowing. He took a flight from Miami.
The Daily Mail has been down-playing anything related to the case and tried to get it to be private (which lol, when they said Meghan should've let a trial happen and they tried to get the names of the friends who went to people.)
They were talking about everything but this but him appearing in person, has forced the papers to actually report and it's not just uk media but global media.
Elton John and other's were also there.
Any positive changes in the media landscape that happens after this, if this group is able to move the needle forward, get protections and hard rules going, it doesn't apply to the royals. They deserve no benefit of his work when it comes to the tabloid media (well, uk media in general because even the bbc isn't as...amazing as it used to be) but they shouldn't be able to benefit at all.
Good luck Harry, Elton, Saddie and everyone
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 27, 2023, 09:01:05 AM
The hearing is for Harry's privacy case against Associated Newspapers. -
Prince Harry arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice as Duke of Sussex set for another legal battle (https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-arrives-at-the-royal-courts-of-justice-as-duke-of-sussex-set-for-another-legal-battle) -
Video: https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1640277338523852801?s=20
Thanks for the update
@PrincessOfPeace. The King and Queen Consort were to begin their State Visit to France this week, but then it was postponed. I'm curious as to how long the DoS will be in the UK? Will he be present for the entire preliminary hearing or will he stay a bit longer?
QuoteThe Duke of Sussex is among a group of claimants in accusations against ANL.
The publisher denies the allegations and a preliminary will consider legal arguments and a judge will decide whether it will go any further.
Prince Harry is bringing the action along with others including actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE.
ANL's response.
QuoteThe preliminary High Court hearing is scheduled to last four days.
In a statement released in October when the legal action was announced, the newspaper group said: "We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.
"These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims - based on no credible evidence - appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere."
The ANL Group trying their hardest to get restrictive reporting on this hacking case is typical of them. Can?t have reporting that shows us up! Everybody else, yes, it?s for the public good! These tabloids make me sick. I hope Harry stays for the full three or four days, and the best of luck to all the complainants!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsOod2KaAAEWBGw?format=jpg&name=small)
It's just amazing to see them scramble due to this case.
The Daily Mail, a paper that has been publishing non-stop stories about Meghan and she hasn't been seen for months, doesn't have one story (as far as I can see right now) about Harry arriving in the UK to take them on.
Some more article links.
Prince Harry Channels 'Revenge Era' With UK Return | HuffPost UK Life (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/prince-harry-return-uk-associated-newspapers-twitter-revenge_uk_64216623e4b0dd51111e11c8?utm_campaign=share_twitter&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004)
Prince Harry at London High Court for hearing against UK publisher | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/27/uk/prince-harry-court-intl/index.html)
Prince Harry in court for privacy suit against tabloids - Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-03-27/prince-harry-in-court-privacy-lawsuit-tabloids-london)
A list of the crimes they're being accused of
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsOmlwXXoAI8NYa?format=jpg&name=small)
edit note - changed size of images to make them format better and easier to read - MB67
Quote from: Curryong on March 27, 2023, 01:11:33 PM
The ANL Group trying their hardest to get restrictive reporting on this hacking case is typical of them. Can?t have reporting that shows us up! Everybody else, yes, it?s for the public good! These tabloids make me sick. I hope Harry stays for the full three or four days, and the best of luck to all the complainants!
I hope he stays for the whole three days, and shows up to court every single day.
They want to write about him so much, write about this.
From the Guardian
Prince Harry shows he is not bluffing in vendetta against Daily Mail owner | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/prince-harry-not-bluffing-vendetta-against-daily-mail-owner-associated-newspapers)
Pre-trial hearings ? where barristers argue over a series of technical legal points ? are not normally box-office material. There were no witnesses called to give evidence on Monday morning at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, no big revelations, and a lot of legal arguments over the status of material provided under the Inquiries Act (2005).
Harry could have snuck in a side entrance. Instead he chose to walk in through the front gate, using the media he hates to draw global attention to this early technical hearing in his battle against the Mail.
Prince Harry's estranged family have no plans to meet with him during his whirlwind visit to the UK | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11908457/Prince-Harrys-estranged-family-no-plans-meet-whirlwind-visit-UK.html)
Prince Harry arrives at High Court for hearing against Associated Newspapers over 'hacking claims' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11906335/Prince-Harry-arrives-High-Court-hearing-against-Associated-Newspapers-hacking-claims.html)
Prince Harry Won't See Prince William or King Charles While in UK (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-wont-see-prince-william-king-charles-during-uk-visit-court-case/)
Prince Harry Makes Surprise Outing in London at Daily Mail Court Case (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-makes-surprise-appearance-in-london-for-court-case-against-daily-mail-publishers/)
Is Meghan Markle back in the UK with Prince Harry and children ahead of coronation? | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230327167758/has-meghan-markle-travelled-prince-harry-court-case-london/)
Meghan stay home with kids
Will King Charles reunite with Prince Harry during whirlwind visit for court hearing? | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230327167786/will-prince-harry-reunite-king-charles-visit-uk-court-hearing/)
Prince Harry will not reunite with Prince William during UK visit - details | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230327167763/why-prince-harry-wont-reunite-with-prince-william-uk-visit/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65087072
Prince Harry sat just three seats away from reporters as he sent a message with unexpected High Court visit | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-sat-just-three-seats-away-from-reporters-as-he-sent-a-message-with-unexpected-high-court-visit-12843716)
Prince Harry arrives at high court for privacy case against Daily Mail owner | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/prince-harry-high-court-associated-newspapers-privacy-case-daily-mail)
Prince Harry sat just three chairs away from journalists in court appearance | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751612/prince-harry-news-london-high-court)
Harry planned UK court trip thinking the King was 'out of country' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751578/prince-harry-high-court-london-king-charles-iii)
Prince Harry 'surprise' appearance at High Court 'was not planned' with King Charles | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751569/prince-harry-high-court-King-Charles-dxus)
Prince Harry's 'low-profile' UK appearance is clear move to 'minimise media circus' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751357/prince-harry-uk-visit-london-dxus)
Prince Harry 'looks hypocritical' in case against Daily Mail publisher after Netflix doc | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751356/prince-harry-meghan-markle-spare-dxus)
Prince Harry 'very unlikely' to reconcile with William this week despite Duke's UK return | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751302/prince-harry-prince-william-reconciliation)
Prince Harry bumps into cameraman as he arrives at High Court for privacy case hearing | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751265/prince-harry-high-court-privacy-case-associated-newspapers)
Ha ha! Sour responses from the journalist in that Fail article. Love it!
And as Harry is in London on business (I?d say he?s staying at a London hotel or with friends in the city), Charles and Camilla are at Highgrove and the Wales?s probably at Anmer in Norfolk, it?s hardly likely that anybody will meet up.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-27/harry-arrives-at-court-for-start-of-hearing-against-associated-newspapers
Prince Harry back in UK as he makes surprise court appearance in latest legal row - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-prince-harry-arrives-high-29557803)
Prince Harry unlikely to see estranged brother Prince William on surprise UK trip - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-unlikely-see-estranged-29560290)
Prince Harry 'won't meet up with Charles' on surprise UK trip as King is 'busy' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-wont-meet-up-29558599)
Prince Harry back in UK as he makes surprise court appearance in latest legal row - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-prince-harry-arrives-high-29557803)
Prince Harry jets into London for surprise court appearance as Elton John joins privacy legal action | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21844808/prince-harry-smiles-court-privacy-hearing/)
Prince Harry not expected to meet King Charles or William on his surprise first visit to Britain since Queen's funeral | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21846343/prince-harry-not-expected-to-meet-king-charles/)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-0cc0144d-3c87-4716-8d4c-d931c6802538.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-bd0db90b-654b-42e2-bec6-658b0ca7c097.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-d048d4cc-1a35-45e3-843f-5cdbf0124615.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-b1696179-6df2-4ee3-a36a-cbfeb03903e6.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-a256cf90-f645-4085-9ec0-7333277f2524.jpeg)
GBR: Prince Harry Court Case Enters Second Day:
https://www.gettyimages.de/search/2/image?events=775959316&family=editorial
The guy never stops -
Prince Harry says Royal Family 'without doubt' withheld information from him on phone hacking | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-says-royal-family-without-doubt-withheld-information-from-him-on-phone-hacking-12844296)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 28, 2023, 03:58:25 PM
The guy never stops -
Prince Harry says Royal Family 'without doubt' withheld information from him on phone hacking | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-says-royal-family-without-doubt-withheld-information-from-him-on-phone-hacking-12844296)
Harry didn?t just blurt that out. It was in his witness statement, which would have included answers to a number of questions, including why he was pursuing the claim at this late date. .
In a witness statement submitted before his civil claim against Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers, the Duke of Sussex said that he was "conditioned to accept" his family's rule to "never complain, never explain" when dealing with the press.
But discussing phone hacking claims against News Group Newspapers, Harry said "I became aware that I had a claim that I could bring" in 2018.
Prince Harry v Daily Mail publisher - latest
"The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation," he said.
Private investigator denies 'unlawful information gathering' for Associated Newspapers | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11911811/Private-investigator-denies-unlawful-information-gathering-Associated-Newspapers.html)
Prince Harry Says Royal Family Withheld Information on Phone Hacking (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-blasts-royal-family-withholding-information-phone-hacking-lawsuit-witness-statement/)
Prince Harry Back at London Court for Second Day of Phone Hacking Case (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-returns-london-court-second-day-phone-hacking-lawsuit/)
Prince Harry's court appearance: All the photos and shocking statements from day 2 | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/488460/prince-harry-arrives-court-justice-day-two-london/)
Charles Spencer breaks silence after Prince Harry's surprise arrival in UK | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/488447/charles-spencer-breaks-silence-prince-harry-surprise-return-uk-court-case/)
Prince Harry admits he has 'cut off' friends after making surprise return to the UK | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/488451/prince-harry-cut-off-friends-suspicions-trial-court-case-anl/)
King Charles celebrates following Prince Harry's surprise return to UK | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/488459/king-charles-reason-to-celebrate-following-prince-harry-return-uk-court-case/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65105315
Prince Harry: Five things we learned from Duke of Sussex's High Court submission | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-five-things-we-learned-from-duke-of-sussexs-high-court-submission-12844405)
Prince Harry: royals ?agreed not to sue? newspapers over phone hacking | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/28/prince-harry-royals-agreed-not-to-sue-newspapers-over-phone-hacking)
Prince Harry claims Royal Family 'without doubt' withheld information about phone hacking | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751971/prince-harry-royal-family-high-court-phone-hacking)
Prince Harry was 'less than happy' as he bumped into cameraman at High Court - claim | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1751604/prince-harry-body-language-high-court-exclusive)
Prince Harry claims he was 'deprived' of being a teenager due to ANL's 'unlawful' actions | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751662/prince-harry-court-case-deprived-teenager)
'I love my country' claims Prince Harry as he seeks 'justice' from publisher in court | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1752072/prince-harry-love-country-daily-mail-high-court)
Duke of Sussex missed his home country of UK include his members of the royal what Netflix mention about that
Prince Harry 'going to do just fine' thanks to pivotal lesson from Princess Diana | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751829/prince-harry-us-future-princess-diana-dxus)
Harry been lesson tips and advice from his mom the late Diana,Princess of Wales
Prince Harry arrives for second day of High Court hearing as King stands firm on meeting | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1751738/prince-harry-court-case-king-meeting)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-28/harry-alleges-royal-family-withheld-key-information-on-phone-hacking
Sir Elton John and David Furnish have ?paternal and protective? friendship with Prince Harry - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sir-elton-john-david-furnish-29574434)
Duke of Sussex and William,Prince of Wales been friendship with legend singer Elton John not back to late Diana,Princess of Wales for years
Prince Harry's high court appearance 'not planned' with King, royal expert claims - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harrys-high-court-appearance-29566321)
Prince Harry 'told King Charles is "too busy" to see him' while in UK for privacy hearing | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21859279/prince-harry-told-king-charles-too-busy-see-him/)
Judge in Mail case warns Prince Harry over private detective | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11916173/Judge-Mail-case-warns-Prince-Harry-private-detective.html)
Prince Harry Skips Third Day of Proceedings in Phone Hacking Lawsuit (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-phone-skips-third-day-phone-hacking-lawsuit-hearing-london/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65117106
Prince Harry privacy claim 'rejected in its entirety', Daily Mail publisher tells High Court | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-privacy-claim-rejected-in-its-entirety-daily-mail-publisher-tells-high-court-12845122)
Witness in Prince Harry?s case against Daily Mail owner unreliable, say lawyers | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/witness-in-prince-harrys-case-against-daily-mail-owner-unreliable-say-lawyers)
Prince Harry 'may lose money' in 'high stakes' legal case against Daily Mail publisher | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1752274/prince-harry-associated-newspapers-legal-case-dxus)
Harry skips third day of privacy hearing after making bombshell claim against the Firm | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1752217/prince-harry-court-case-london)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-29/itv-news-speaks-to-private-investigator-allegedly-paid-by-mail-on-sunday
Prince Harry's privacy claim was 'far too late' and 'should be thrown out', court hears - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-privacy-claim-far-29581328)
Entitled multi-millionaire Prince Harry?s privacy crusade makes him the biggest hypocrite in the world - here?s why | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21872508/piers-morgan-prince-harry/)
Prince Harry returns to court on Thurs. March 30, 2023 for the final day of the preliminary hearing.
EL PRINCIPE HARRY EN UNA NUEVA JORNADA DEL JUICIO CONTRA LOS MEDIOS INGLESES - Todos - ..:GTRESONLINE:.. (http://images.gtresnews.com/es/feature/1297881/el-principe-harry-en-una-nueva-jornada-del-juicio-contra-los-medios-ingleses/page/1/SN/ACTUALITY_TODOS)
Harry returns to High Court as privacy claim hearing... | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-11920243/Harry-returns-High-Court-privacy-claim-hearing-nears-end.html)
Daily Fail report at this legal hearing reaches its end. All the claimants have been in court this week on various days including Harry, who has been present for several hours on Monday, Tuesday and for a short while Thursday. The judge is likely to take several weeks to decide if this case should proceed to trial.
Prince Harry Returns to Court for Final Day of Phone Hacking Hearing (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-returns-court-london-phone-hacking-hearing/)
Prince Harry reappears at High Court for final day of privacy case - see photos | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/488704/prince-harry-missing-court-case-where-is-he/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65130479
Prince Harry case - latest: Harry back at High Court as barristers in Daily Mail publisher hearing make closing comments to judge | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-daily-mail-publisher-private-investigator-statement-released-latest-12843334)
Stephen Lawrence's mother Doreen was effectively 'gaslit' by Daily Mail, court told - as Harry makes appearance | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/stephen-lawrences-mother-doreen-was-effectively-gaslit-by-daily-mail-court-told-as-harry-makes-appearance-12845819)
Prince Harry has every right to take on the Daily Mail. But is phone hacking yesterday?s problem? | Simon Jenkins | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/30/prince-harry-daily-mail-phone-hacking-social-media)
I understand news of the world is out of business due hacking and no privacy on royals and celebrities not without their permission or consent from their royals and celebrities?s attorneys present
Daily Mail owner ?gaslighting? victims, Prince Harry?s lawyer tells court | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/30/prince-harry-daily-mail-owner-gaslighting-victims-lawyer-tells-court)
Prince Harry's privacy claim 'should be thrown out' as it was 'far too late', court hears | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1752689/prince-harry-privacy-lawsuit-late)
Prince Harry dons ?800 'bee shirt' from Dior in London today - 'looking fine and dapper!' | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/1752923/prince-harry-bee-shirt-dior)
Duke of Sussex?s shirts don?t think have spilled but its bees
Prince Harry smiles and waves as he arrives at court for final day of legal hearing - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-smiles-waves-arrives-29586445)
Prince Harry arrives for another day in court for privacy hearing flanked by security | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21886543/prince-harry-arrives-for-another-day-in-court/)
Samantha Markle?s case for defamation against her half-sister Meghan in Florida has been dismissed by the judge?s ruling. Meghan has won. Hooray!
Order on Motion to Dismiss ? #70 in Markle v. Markle (M.D. Fla., 8:22-cv-00511) ? CourtListener.com (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/)
Quote from: Curryong on March 30, 2023, 10:48:11 PM
Samantha Markle?s case for defamation against her half-sister Meghan in Florida has been dismissed by the judge?s ruling. Meghan has won. Hooray!
Order on Motion to Dismiss ? #70 in Markle v. Markle (M.D. Fla., 8:22-cv-00511) ? CourtListener.com (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/)
True for the most part!
Meghan has won in a sense that the judge even thinks the Oprah Interview claim by Samantha is weak. She has 14 days to re-file and make her case but it doesn't look like it's going to go in her favor. Depending on what happens after the 14 days, Meghan can go after damages and her lawyers legal fee's. I think she should. Samantha brought the case, so she should be willing to pay.
But overall, another win in Meghan's favor!
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 30, 2023, 11:30:35 PM
True for the most part!
Meghan has won in a sense that the judge even thinks the Oprah Interview claim by Samantha is weak. She has 14 days to re-file and make her case but it doesn't look like it's going to go in her favor. Depending on what happens after the 14 days, Meghan can go after damages and her lawyers legal fee's. I think she should. Samantha brought the case, so she should be willing to pay.
But overall, another win in Meghan's favor!
Yes but Meghan always wins against Samantha for no reason but Meghan always have their own business plus Meghan hired their attorney and fees also but I understand Meghan?s favor to wins case not Samantha?s case!!
Quote from: Curryong on March 30, 2023, 10:48:11 PM
Samantha Markle?s case for defamation against her half-sister Meghan in Florida has been dismissed by the judge?s ruling. Meghan has won. Hooray!
Order on Motion to Dismiss ? #70 in Markle v. Markle (M.D. Fla., 8:22-cv-00511) ? CourtListener.com (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/)
Meghan makes decisions to ruled wins her case not Samantha?s
Quote from: Curryong on March 30, 2023, 10:48:11 PM
Samantha Markle?s case for defamation against her half-sister Meghan in Florida has been dismissed by the judge?s ruling. Meghan has won. Hooray!
Order on Motion to Dismiss ? #70 in Markle v. Markle (M.D. Fla., 8:22-cv-00511) ? CourtListener.com (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/)
Not in the least bit surprised.
Quote from: sara8150 on March 31, 2023, 02:25:00 AM
Yes but Meghan always wins against Samantha for no reason but Meghan always have their own business plus Meghan hired their attorney and fees also but I understand Meghan?s favor to wins case not Samantha?s case!!
I really am sorry but I'm a bit confused by what you mean? Meghan's win against Samantha wasn't for 'no reason' there was very much a reason. Samantha brought a weak case, instead of quoting Meghan from the lawsuit, she filed her interpretation of Meghan's words. She was unable to counter the claims she made against Meghan with well reasoned evidence. (Such as, she says that she had a loss of whatever because Samantha said Meghan said she changed her name back to Markle to make money or whatever but Samantha also didn't bring evidence to counter that. And she can't because she did change her name back to Markle when things took off, one of her first interview's and articles around her were Samantha Grant. ) The judge is even being nice by letting Samantha even re-file with the Oprah quoting wording exactly instead of making up her own stuff.
So Meghan is winning because Samantha brought a weak case, with weak case, nothing to support her and it's obvious it was an attention grab.
Here is the actual ruling, you can read through it: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.399340/gov.uscourts.flmd.399340.70.0.pdf
Apparently Samantha's lawyers will be appealing/amending the week of 3rd April, which falls within the 14 days given.
Quote from: wannable on April 01, 2023, 03:50:42 PM
Apparently Samantha's lawyers will be appealing/amending the week of 3rd April, which falls within the 14 days given.
Well, the judge in her determination told Samantha?s lawyers that there would be little chance of success even if they did amend, so if Samantha wants to throw more good money after bad that is her prerogative. At the rate this is going she will end up declaring bankruptcy as a loss would almost certainly mean she will be paying Meghan?s costs as well as her own.
Quote from: wannable on April 01, 2023, 03:50:42 PM
Apparently Samantha's lawyers will be appealing/amending the week of 3rd April, which falls within the 14 days given.
Apart from ?apparently?, which could well be opinions from the Internet including TicToc and Twitter, where is any viable media source that is contending that Samantha?s lawyers will be amending her case?
I find it very hard to believe that any reputable law firm reading Judge Honeywell?s determination would encourage any client to proceed with such action.
So please give a viable media source here that they intend to do so.
Quote from: Curryong on April 02, 2023, 04:29:00 AM
Apart from ?apparently?, which could well be opinions from the Internet including TicToc and Twitter, where is any viable media source that is contending that Samantha?s lawyers will be amending her case?
I find it very hard to believe that any reputable law firm reading Judge Honeywell?s determination would encourage any client to proceed with such action.
So please give a viable media source here that they intend to do so.
Samantha posted a statement on her twitter page from her lawyer stating that they would amend.
So yeah, they're going forward but this is the same firm that repped Trump.
The issue: The judge is being super nice here but by allowing them the chance to just back away from this. In the wording, the judge said, that even if they re-submit with the correct wording from the Oprah interview, they still wouldn't have a case. How Meghan feels, is how Meghan feels. The judge also said that if they don't bring something new from how the Trump case went, they'll be hit with anti-slap laws and sanctions for wasting the courts time. They also wouldn't be able to bring this case again.
So, even with a re-file, it's likely to be dismissed again.
It was always a loosing case but the judge is giving them every chance to back out.
Thanks change, I actually read from a couple of sources online that Samantha was going to go ahead after I posted. My bugbear here is that of putting rumours from Twitter or gossip columnists up on this forum without any source given at all. It?s happened a lot with a particular poster (and forum rules ask that posters provide a link to a viable source which is why I posted that request.)
Well, as I posted before that, if Samantha is prepared to throw good money after bad in a hopeless quest, that is up to her. God knows how large her legal bills are at the moment. If she wants to double them and maybe then pay Meghan?s also, go for it! In a way it reminds me of a certain little elderly man who is facing financial ruin after bumping into a celeb on the ski slopes. He?s appealing his case too!
IMO I wouldn't amend, at this point in time after all the public exposure around Oprah, The Cut, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. everyone knows Meghan Markle is the most toxic person in that family. RE: Samantha's defamation case.
The public court of opinion has already polled, the poor woman is basically in the dumps, like her numbers keep on getting negative.
Quote from: wannable on April 03, 2023, 08:58:47 PM
IMO I wouldn't amend, at this point in time after all the public exposure around Oprah, The Cut, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. everyone knows Meghan Markle is the most toxic person in that family. RE: Samantha's defamation case.
The public court of opinion has already polled, the poor woman is basically in the dumps, like her numbers keep on getting negative.
You think Samantha?s worried about Meghan?s reputation!!! She wants to claw back some money, any money at all, money she isn?t likely to get in a million years, as the judge told her and her lawyer, as kindly as she possibly could, in her determination.
And if Meghan?s reputation is that low, which I do not accept, then Samantha?s is down below the Marianna Trench in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Still, if Samantha wants to go for broke, and in her case it will literally be just that, then go for it! And then file for bankruptcy!
Meghan is fine.
Everyone knows that Samantha who joined hate groups and gone around telling people Meghan can't have kids, her own daughter doesn't speak to her, nor her son, nor her other daughter. Her brother has called her toxic and she wrote a book in which she called Meghan an alien in the womb and and got mad at 1 year old old for throwing berries, disrespected Doria....is the issue. Calling Meghan the most toxic one when her sister in her book admits to trying to psychically LOOK like Meghan is a laugh.
When Samantha can get her three kids to speak to her, then we'll talk about Meghan being the most toxic in the family. (Because once again, just because people WISH something about Meghan won't make it true and this push that she's in the dumps....is just factually wrong when you check out the media engagement)
Well, I mean those who have sense, everyone else....it's really whatever.
1. Polls don't matter as she's not in the public eye in an official capacity.
2. The numbers for this polling is never clear.
3. The awards, the shout-out's she gets, the mentions in pop-culture, the way her clothes are rushed to brought out, the way people listened to her podcast that had 0 to do with the royal family, Meghan is good, no matter the push.
Some people would lead happier lives if they accepted it and just moved on from wishing, wanting and waiting for Meghan to fall.
And with that, I'll be done and bring it back to the case.
Meghan, get your money and ruin her, with flare! I'll be looking forward to it.
Samatha is not an angel but she is a sick woman, Meghan has all the cards there, why would you want her to RUIN her sister? the woman's life is ruined already
Exactly, and for what it's worth, my previous comment of I wouldn't amend if I were Sam, the Duchess herself has ruined her own life, the media (worldwide) is waiting to see IF the Duchess WILL 'keep on' trashing her own family and his family too'', which as I said, the ''public court of opinion'' is good enough, already decided, if not their poll numbers in the UK and the USA would be average to very good, but it is not, it's bad to worse.
The thing with Meghan is she twisted all her public statements including the emails to Jason about Sam. Meghan actually uses every possible way and manner to twist her and his family. As I explained in the Markle thread is socialites board, her sickness is tied to social security which is tied to US law. So it's not negligence and whatever other nasty stuff MM has said about Sam, it's her sickness (no cure, it's forever until she passes away) that has her literally downed in all senses of life; from personal to economical.
Quote from: Amabel2 on April 04, 2023, 04:39:33 PM
Samatha is not an angel but she is a sick woman, Meghan has all the cards there, why would you want her to RUIN her sister? the woman's life is ruined already
Er, it wasn?t Meghan who went ahead and sued her half-sister, it was this ?sick woman? who went ahead and sued Meghan.
Surely if this terribly sick woman (and Meghan isn?t responsible for her half-sister?s health condition) was serious about preserving her physical and mental health, then she wouldn?t have gone ahead and sued in the first place. It?s the lawyers? bills that may well ruin Samantha, not Meghan. Or are you suggesting that Meghan should pay Samantha?s bills as well as her own? Or just wave away the thousands spent on her own lawyers fighting this suit, with a wave of her hand?
To the point about Meghan twisting and polls and public opinion and Jason Knauf and etc. If you feel that way, go for it! I don't feel that way and how Meghan is actually doing, shows the compete opposite of what you believe is happening to her so I think we're in a stalemate there.
I will ask that you not spread lies, Meghan hasn't said anything nasty about Samantha. Saying Samantha lost her kids? It's true, court documents prove it. Saying she doesn't have a relationship with Samantha, it's not nasty, it's true. Saying Sam changed her last name back to Markle? She did. One of the first interviews she gave was as Samantha Grant, then she started appearing on British Media and changed it to Markle, even official documents listed her as Grant. There is nothing and no nasty lies in there. And no matter how much you call Meghan nasty, say she has a sickness (even bringing up her death which is just....actually quite nasty and it's the second time that I know of that you've done it) doesn't make it true.
If you're going to dislike Meghan, it's fine. It's not my thing to force to people to not like someone but please don't lie. Now, if you want to talk about nasty things being said about someone, Meghan takes the cake for nasty things getting said about her and once again, about her before she even opened her mouth.
As for ruining Samantha:
Why not?
Samantha, had no issue with Meghan labeling herself an only child in 2012, when Meghan was just Meghan on Suits, owner of The Tig. She only cared when it came to the fact that Meghan was marrying a Prince.
Samantha has been completely disrespectful to Doria, a woman who has said 0 about her.
Samantha, describe her hatred for Meghan, when Meghan was still a baby. She called her an alien and likened her to monster forming inside of Doria's belly.
Samantha, went on British media, way before Meghan opened her mouth about anything and called Meghan cruel names.
Once again, Samantha, had a twitter account in which she told people Meghan couldn't have kids, she want on GB News and parroted the whole are Meghan needs to prove she had her kids, she has joined alt-right hate groups. She called a baby, under 2 years nasty and a brat for throwing blue berries. Sick or not, Meghan has NEVER spoken on of the Royal Family or her HER Family, like she's been spoken about by everyone since it came she was dating Prince Harry.
Meghan, does not owe this woman anything.
Samantha, has chosen to sue Meghan. It is her right to sue if she wants. If she is woman enough to sue, she is woman enough to handle what comes after. This was a frivolous lawsuit, brought, so Samantha could enter discovery and find out information about Meghan.
So, yes, she should be ruined, maybe she would finally learn.
At least when Meghan brings her lawsuits, they're for an actual reason and have a real chance a winning.
Now, Meghan might be too nice to go after Samantha in the way Sam has gone after her but the media and those watching have painted Meghan has this super villain, intent on hurting everyone and brining down people, I think she should lean into it. Why not?
Either way, if Samantha didn't want to be ruined and she didn't want to play legal fees, she shouldn't have started the fight.
Being sisters has clearly never mattered to Samantha, so why does Meghan have to burden herself with that? Answer: She shouldn't. Samantha hasn't treated her as a sister since the moment she knew Meghan would be born, she was an annoyance for Sam and an outlet for Samantha to take it out her anger on, instead of taking it out on their father Thomas.
Let's not forgot, Meghan wouldn't have all of the kids, if Sam didn't sue.
So, I hope she is ruined.
Quote from: Curryong on April 04, 2023, 07:57:15 PM
Er, it wasn?t Meghan who went ahead and sued her half-sister, it was this ?sick woman? who went ahead and sued Meghan.
Surely if this terribly sick woman (and Meghan isn?t responsible for her half-sister?s health condition) was serious about preserving her physical and mental health, then she wouldn?t have gone ahead and sued in the first place. It?s the lawyers? bills that may well ruin Samantha, not Meghan. Or are you suggesting that Meghan should pay Samantha?s bills as well as her own? Or just wave away the thousands spent on her own lawyers fighting this suit, with a wave of her hand?
Im sure you know quite well what I mean. Meghan has no reason to love her sister, or to do more than live her life without reference to her sister, but its anohter thing to RUIN her which is what was suggested.
Quote from: Amabel2 on April 05, 2023, 09:11:07 AM
Im sure you know quite well what I mean. Meghan has no reason to love her sister, or to do more than live her life without reference to her sister, but its anohter thing to RUIN her which is what was suggested.
I suggested in my post that Samantha would be ruined financially as if this case goes forward in Florida she will may very well end up being made by the courts in Florida to pay Meghan?s costs as well as her own. As Meghan?s costs have now reached well over 70,000 dollars according to reports, then I would imagine that Samantha?s are similar.
If Samantha should win (which is extremely unlikely) then she would certainly expect Meghan to pay her full damages and costs which might well stretch to nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
What do you suggest Meghan do for this half sister who has persecuted her online since 2016, if she wins? Say ?It?s all right dear, I know everything you?ve done to me for six years, and you?ve sued me for thousands. But I?ll wear the nearly 100,000 costs of this law suit against me. That?s fine!??
I believe in being gracious in victory but that would be going just a bit too far!
I was not talking about what you said, intially as you very well know. I was referring to the ohter poster who wants Sam to be RUINED.
Harry will be in the UK in June to testify against The Mirror. It starts in May and Harry's part will be during June. I believe, he's expected to speak over 3-4 days.
Some people in the media want to focus on the phone hacking but it's all unlawful and nasty.
It's accessing medical records.
Bugging cars.
Paying off police for information.
Tapping phone lines (listening to live conversation)
Breaking into homes.
CAMRI | Steven Barnett speaks to ABC News about Prince Harry?s case against the Daily Mail - CAMRI (https://camri.ac.uk/blog/2023/04/05/steven-barnett-speaks-to-abc-news-about-prince-harrys-case-against-the-daily-mail/)
Video above, talks about the claims being brought against the mail. Thankfully, it's not the normal type of uk media spin and a lawyer simply talking about the case. The fact that the second half of Leveson was dropped, is dangerous and allows the media too much freedom to act like bullies.
Good luck to everyone in the case again and hopefully, aspect of changes to happen. Not that everyone should benefit from those changes as long as they're willing to engage with the media and their dangerous ways.
Quote from: Curryong on April 05, 2023, 10:14:25 AM
I suggested in my post that Samantha would be ruined financially as if this case goes forward in Florida she will may very well end up being made by the courts in Florida to pay Meghan?s costs as well as her own. As Meghan?s costs have now reached well over 70,000 dollars according to reports, then I would imagine that Samantha?s are similar.
If Samantha should win (which is extremely unlikely) then she would certainly expect Meghan to pay her full damages and costs which might well stretch to nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
What do you suggest Meghan do for this half sister who has persecuted her online since 2016, if she wins? Say ?It?s all right dear, I know everything you?ve done to me for six years, and you?ve sued me for thousands. But I?ll wear the nearly 100,000 costs of this law suit against me. That?s fine!??
I believe in being gracious in victory but that would be going just a bit too far!
You're very more reasonable, but they were talking about me.
I think she, Sam, should be ruined.
Meghan has already done the whole not talking about her sister for the better part of her life. Even in passing mentions, it's mainly, we're not close, I was an only child.
I don't think Sam deserves grace but that's a me thing.
It's more than likely that as long as Samantha is willing to drop it, Meghan is willing to drop it. I just don't think it's what Samantha deserves. Especially not after going anywhere near GB News.
Sam is already physically ruined, which is a domino effect on her life. I understand 2-3 US power people with money are paying all of her lawsuit expenses with nothing expected in return, in written. IMO they are Republicans. Edit to add: Win or Lose, either way is the 'sponsorship'.
Meghan is already ruined because of her own mouth.
Samantha would talk to Satan himself if it meant that she was able to spit vitriol at her sister, and imo anyone who speaks to that repugnant and failing so called news service GB news, deserves everything that?s coming to them ,
Yes Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered Stephen, believes that she was followed, allegedly, for upwards of 15-20 years by DM agents and like the other claimants, that her phone calls were bugged and her financial and medical records were were hacked. These actions regarding ANL are truly repugnant.
Quote from: wannable on April 05, 2023, 06:16:33 PM
Sam is already physically ruined, which is a domino effect on her life. I understand 2-3 US power people with money are paying all of her lawsuit expenses with nothing expected in return, in written. IMO they are Republicans. Edit to add: Win or Lose, either way is the 'sponsorship'.
Meghan is already ruined because of her own mouth.
Samantha?s father is a dyed in the wool Democrat, so IF her backers in this court case are Republican it just shows how low the Markle family are prepared to go. However I don?t believe these backers? primary motivation is political. They may well be Americans and wealthy but I believe they have links to British establishment figures. That repulsive fake aristo Lady C seems to know all about them. She?s been chuckling about this court case off and on for weeks. What a disappointment for her, lol!
Either way, Samantha will be left with little money of her own. She is extremely unlikely to get the financial recompense from her half sister that she asked for, or the moral victory a win in court would give her. So it?s lose-lose for her and whatever backers she has.
She?s not spending a cent. It?s all paid for. As I said I believe it?s Florida republicans.
The alleged fraud committed by the 6 in decline celebs forging a signature in an edited document might ruin their case.
Quote from: wannable on April 06, 2023, 01:33:23 AM
She?s not spending a cent. It?s all paid for. As I said I believe it?s Florida republicans.
That doesn?t mean she has huge amounts of money to live on, unless these people are helping her to survive day by day with her food, rent, energy bills etc. And whatever support Samantha has got through this case is likely to cease after the failure of this legal case, Republicans or not they?ll drift away.
Quote from: wannable on April 06, 2023, 01:36:32 AM
The alleged fraud committed by the 6 in decline celebs forging a signature in an edited document might ruin their case.
Funny how there?s always disaster of some sort predicted for both Meghan and Harry in their legal endeavours by their detractors, yet they keep on winning their cases.
Elton John has just finished an extremely successful world tour. Baroness Lawrence is no mere celebrity, but a figure very much admired in Britain. What does the state or otherwise of these claimants fame have to do with these six challenging wrongs they believe were done to them, anyway? And as for ?decline?, that could be said for monarchies themselves in the 21st century. .
Sam is a low middle class individual, she doesn't have the moneys to demand a lawsuit, she accepted to do it because she has benefactors from her home state, Florida. It is not a secret that Meghan HAS invested moneys to Democratic ex or actual reps. So yes, these Sam benefactors IMO are the controlling Republicans from Florida (*Controlling = The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature). The hearing WAS in Florida, the 14 day wait if Sam goes on WILL be in Florida. Both sisters have publicly trashed each other. The Judge is unbiased so far, she actually told Sam's lawyers what to strike out and what to improve in what can remain for a case. And the Judge is black, so I would expect no complaints to the matter that judges DO notify both parties thoughts in reference to 'files'.
The High Court in the UK, last 4th day, the defendants with the detective in question officially confirmed to the Judge that the documents presented by the 6 in decline celebs is not only a fraud but they forged the signature of the said detective. The Judge told the 6 in decline lawyers to fix their documentation to see IF it will proceed or not. ETA: Fraud is when one gets an original document (or film) edits and cuts bits and pieces here and there, ties it together distorting the context, then proceeds to use a 'digital' signature rather than a original fresh in other color ink (if the document is black, usually a original signature should be signed in blue ink and seal it).
Elton John goodbye tour is typical of musicians in decline (grandfather) as are athlete stars who retire. Basically, Only Fans! His goodbye tour was optimistically average, demographics of attendants; 65 plus, mostly 70 year olds.
LIVE Markle Defamation Suit Dismissed. Cousin Eddie Hearing. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzFuEgoJwi4)
Emily. D. Baker (Lawyer) goes through the Lawsuit with Meghan and Samantha, starts on it 58 minutes in. She's going through the motion and etc!
Quote from: changemhysoul on April 07, 2023, 05:45:28 PM
LIVE Markle Defamation Suit Dismissed. Cousin Eddie Hearing. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzFuEgoJwi4)
Emily. D. Baker (Lawyer) goes through the Lawsuit with Meghan and Samantha, starts on it 58 minutes in. She's going through the motion and etc!
Yes, Emily is terrific. I watch her on YouTube a lot. She posted an hilarious piece in January about a deluded Tik Tok psychic who is being sued by an Idaho Professor for stating dozens of times on her site that said Professor was the infamous Idaho killer of the four dead students.
I?ve watched this piece on Samantha?s deposition myself and Emily?s explanation of why it was dismissed, going clause by clause through Judge Honeywell?s dismissal is absolutely brilliant. It is now the 8th of April here. The judge?s dismissal was on the 30th of March, so it has been nine days since Samantha?s team were given 14 days to file an amendment. Five days to go. Nothing so far!
Prince Harry to Appear as a Witness in London Court Trial this Summer (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-appear-witness-london-court-trial-mirror-group-newspapers/)
It is now April the tenth. When Judge Honeywell dismissed Samantha Markle?s defamation suit against her half sister, she gave Samantha?s legal team 14 days to amend the bits that were left to amend. That was on March 30th. It is now April 10th, eleven days later.
Going to amend? They are certainly leaving it to the last minute IF they intend to do so. Couldn?t be that they can?t find anything Meghan has said in any interview that would amount to a lawsuit could it, lol? If so, then Samantha?s backers, if she has any, have lost many thousands of dollars.
Quote from: Curryong on April 10, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
It is now April the tenth. When Judge Honeywell dismissed Samantha Markle?s defamation suit against her half sister, she gave Samantha?s legal team 14 days to amend the bits that were left to amend. That was on March 30th. It is now April 10th, eleven days later.
Going to amend? They are certainly leaving it to the last minute IF they intend to do so. Couldn?t be that they can?t find anything Meghan has said in any interview that would amount to a lawsuit could it, lol? If so, then Samantha?s backers, if she has any, have lost many thousands of dollars.
I'm expecting that they'll file on the very last day.
I don't see Samantha being bright enough to pause, stop and really think about this, nor her lawyers.
As I said I hope Sam folds her case.
But, if they do leave it for the last day, it's a lower tribunal in Tampa, governed by State court proceedings rather than Federal. So, they ammend/appeal or they request another 14 days, which is allowed.
Quote from: wannable on April 10, 2023, 12:30:48 PM
As I said I hope Sam folds her case.
But, if they do leave it for the last day, it's a lower tribunal in Tampa, governed by State court proceedings rather than Federal. So, they ammend/appeal or they request another 14 days, which is allowed.
Charlene Honeywell - Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Charlene_Honeywell)
Judge Honeywell served as a circuit court judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida until her elevation to the federal bench. She was nominated to the Thirteenth Circuit by former Governor Jeb Bush in 2000. Honeywell also served a four-year term on the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission.[3]
Judge Honeywell who wrote the deposition dismissal is a member of the Federal judiciary.
Request Rejected (https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judges/charlene-honeywell)
Quote from: Curryong on April 10, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
It is now April the tenth. When Judge Honeywell dismissed Samantha Markle?s defamation suit against her half sister, she gave Samantha?s legal team 14 days to amend the bits that were left to amend. That was on March 30th. It is now April 10th, eleven days later.
Going to amend? They are certainly leaving it to the last minute IF they intend to do so. Couldn?t be that they can?t find anything Meghan has said in any interview that would amount to a lawsuit could it, lol? If so, then Samantha?s backers, if she has any, have lost many thousands of dollars.
Meghan dismissed case against her half sister Samantha I don?t think will have court case but judge says Meghan already win case!! I cant blame Meghan but Meghan had attorney of power for good reason
Quote from: changemhysoul on April 10, 2023, 12:11:30 PM
I'm expecting that they'll file on the very last day.
I don't see Samantha being bright enough to pause, stop and really think about this, nor her lawyers.
I?m sure Meghan had attorney of their own and she can win case but she dismissed her case against her half sister Samantha for good reasons I don?t think Meghan will have court or NO!! But Meghan very private person
Quote from: wannable on April 10, 2023, 12:30:48 PM
As I said I hope Sam folds her case.
But, if they do leave it for the last day, it's a lower tribunal in Tampa, governed by State court proceedings rather than Federal. So, they ammend/appeal or they request another 14 days, which is allowed.
We have wait and see
Quote from: Curryong on April 10, 2023, 01:55:42 PM
Charlene Honeywell - Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Charlene_Honeywell)
Judge Honeywell served as a circuit court judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida until her elevation to the federal bench. She was nominated to the Thirteenth Circuit by former Governor Jeb Bush in 2000. Honeywell also served a four-year term on the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission.[3]
Judge Honeywell who wrote the deposition dismissal is a member of the Federal judiciary.
Request Rejected (https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judges/charlene-honeywell)
Yes
Well, it?s now the 14th of April 2023 and so far Samantha?s lawyers have not delivered an amended deposition in answer to Judge Honeywell?s dismissal of much of Samantha?s case. It is now fifteen days since she demolished most of what Samantha had to say, and her legal team were given fourteen days to assemble a new case. Good luck to Samantha and any financial backers as Meghan?s team will no doubt be back in the next weeks asking for costs to be awarded.
Sam?s lawyers did refile (I?d quote Curry but unsure how to do it on mobile)
Looking over the filing?.she?s still grasping at straws. Anywho, I?m waiting for Meghan to turn around, hit her with the anti-slap, get the money and ruin Sam. She should take every penny she can because if Sam doesn?t care, she shouldn?t either.
Yes, I?ve just read that report now, thanks change. She refiled with a few hours to spare. I haven?t read the amended file of course (Yet.) I?m longing for Emily Baker to get her mitts on it and have some more fun online. Apparently there are wild claims in these amended claims about Meghan ?demonising? her and saying she (Sam) was racist!
I wish she hadn't, but alas...here's the amended document
DocumentCloud (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23775395-markle-v-markle-amended-complaint-dated-april-13-2023)
Source: Ellie Hall, download from Tampa, Fl. court posted via twitter
Ellie Hall is a senior reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC. Contact this reporter at ellie.hall@buzzfeed.com.
^Her profile
Just see the bottom of the document, the lawyer group. As I said, the Republicans are behind Sam. Just see the owner of the law firm IS
Who Is Peter Ticktin? Trump Lawyer :teehee:
So? The owner of Sam?s law firm is a Trump lawyer. That?s something to be really proud of I?m sure, lol! And the fact he?s a lawyer involved with the Orange One (who?s paying out a fortune in lawyers himself at the moment) didn?t prevent a federal judge from throwing out the vast majority of Ticktin?s underlings? case presented in Tampa.
Samantha Grant is still on Twitter pushing this angle that Meghans kids are hers.
The more I see, the more I want Meghan to come down hard on the anti-slap laws and take everything she has.
Quote from: changemhysoul on April 17, 2023, 11:43:18 PM
Samantha Grant is still on Twitter pushing this angle that Meghans kids are hers.
The more I see, the more I want Meghan to come down hard on the anti-slap laws and take everything she has.
So do I! Let this rubbishy court case be dismissed (sue for all costs) and get back after the Coronation to some sort of normal. What do you mean about Samantha saying Meghan?s kids are hers, though? Twitter is just revolting. People can say anything and get away with it.
Quote from: Curryong on April 18, 2023, 12:16:39 AM
So do I! Let this rubbishy court case be dismissed (sue for all costs) and get back after the Coronation to some sort of normal. What do you mean about Samantha saying Meghan?s kids are hers, though? Twitter is just revolting. People can say anything and get away with it.
I?m still on mobile until I get my laptop issue settled so it?s my mistake. She?s implying that Meghan?s kids aren?t hers by saying that Meghan needs to show the kids, no one has seen the kids and that they need to prove the lineage by having the kids DNA tested.
Quote from: changemhysoul on April 18, 2023, 12:25:27 AM
I?m still on mobile until I get my laptop issue settled so it?s my mistake. She?s implying that Meghan?s kids aren?t hers by saying that Meghan needs to show the kids, no one has seen the kids and that they need to prove the lineage by having the kids DNA tested.
Thanks, change. Oh, that old story that?s been around since the pregnancy with Archie! Twitter rubbish. And the kids have been seen intermittently since his christening photos. The last time was in the Netflix doco. Neil Sean, the gossipy showbiz so called reporter, keeps calling the kids ?mysterious? on the odd occasion I see his broadcasts. If the Sussexes did show their children a lot they would be inevitably accused by Samantha, Sean, Wootton and co of trying to push them out to make money out of them.
Quote from: Curryong on April 18, 2023, 12:56:38 AM
Thanks, change. Oh, that old story that?s been around since the pregnancy with Archie! Twitter rubbish. And the kids have been seen intermittently since his christening photos. The last time was in the Netflix doco. Neil Sean, the gossipy showbiz so called reporter, keeps calling the kids ?mysterious? on the odd occasion I see his broadcasts. If the Sussexes did show their children a lot they would be inevitably accused by Samantha, Sean, Wootton and co of trying to push them out to make money out of them.
I agree.
But the fact that she would even engage and spread this stuff. Get your money Meg.
Cameron Walker thread in reference to Harry's case with the Daily Mail Associated Newspapers Limited, although Harry's lawyers are using in today's hearing Prince William's win vs News Group Newspaper (Murdock group) as an example of why Harry should win his case vs the Associated Newspaper Limited.
https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1650815602959761409
Harry's lawyers as can be seen in the thread mentioned William and Queen Elizabeth II as the first winning and the second allegedly verbally authorizing Harry to go after the Daily Mail (ANL)
For what it's worth, someone leaked this part of the 'today hearing' to Neil Sean 7 days ago. So that is his 50/50 source coming true (honesly I didn't believe it a week ago when he said H lawyers were going to disclose the W win)
Quote from: wannable on April 25, 2023, 01:57:37 PM
For what it's worth, someone leaked this part of the 'today hearing' to Neil Sean 7 days ago. So that is his 50/50 source coming true (honesly I didn't believe it a week ago when he said H lawyers were going to disclose the W win)
Sean picks up gossip from here there and everywhere, much of it incorrect. And why shouldn?t Harry?s lawyers speak about Will?s 2020 settlement. It?s part of the legal argument. The newspaper group?s lawyers keep protesting that Harry and the others are too late to stake a claim while at the same time insisting that the newspaper did nothing wrong! No, nothing wrong, that?s why they?ve paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement of cases over the last twenty years!
Rupert Murdoch?s media business secretly paid Prince William a ?very large sum of money? to quietly settle a phone-hacking claim, according to new court filings. The Prince of Wales received the previously undisclosed payment in 2020 after bringing a legal claim against the owner of the Sun and the News of the World. Details of the settlement were given in legal documents submitted by his brother, Prince Harry, as part of his own legal battle with the publisher, which returns to the high court on Tuesday.
Harry told the court his attempts to seek an apology from Murdoch?s company over phone hacking were carried out with the approval of his grandmother the late Queen Elizabeth II. The royal claims there was a secret agreement struck between royal family and ?senior executives? at Murdoch?s company at some point before 2012. As part of this supposed deal the princes would delay legal proceedings against the newspaper group in return for receiving an apology at a later date.
Harry said the royal family did this after being scarred by the ?Tampongate? incident when the Sun obtained a recorded phone call between Prince Charles and Camilla while the couple were having an affair in the 1980s. Harry said the royal family was desperate to avoid a repeat of this coverage. The filings state: ?The reason for this was to avoid the situation where a member of the royal family would have to sit in the witness box and recount the specific details of the private and highly sensitive voicemails that had been intercepted by [the News of the World royal reporter] Clive Goodman. The institution was incredibly nervous about this and wanted to avoid at all costs the sort of reputational damage that it had suffered in 1993 when the Sun and another tabloid had unlawfully obtained and published details of an intimate telephone conversation that took place between my father and stepmother in 1989, while he was still married to my mother.?
Harry says News UK failed to uphold its side of the secret agreement when he sought this apology in 2017. He claims meetings were arranged involving Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of Murdoch?s News UK, and Robert Thomson, the global head of Murdoch?s global News Corp business, but they went nowhere.
As a result, Harry decided to launch legal proceedings against the publisher of the Sun and the News of the World. He alleges the company targeted him with widespread illegal activity for much of his life, including hacking his voicemails and illegally obtaining personal information in the name of journalism. Many of Harry?s allegations relate to claims of illegal behaviour at the Sun while Brooks was editor in the 2000s. News Group Newspapers insisted there is no secret agreement.
[From The Guardian]
Why is Prince Harry back in court over phone-hacking claims? | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-harry-court-phone-hacking-claims-press-murdoch-prince-william)
Harry says News UK failed to uphold its side of the secret agreement when he sought this apology in 2017.
Ohhhh! I see now.
William and Catherine's phones were hacked much more than Harry's. William had every right to seek a settlement.
Yes, I agree, what I didn't know, according to The Guardian anti monarchist media website, they are stating the Harry DID receive a secret settlement (like WIlliam) but he is not satisfied because the word ''apology'' wasn't included in the secret settlement.
I personally find it inappropriate for any working member of the royal family to receive a settlement from a media corporation without it being publicly announced.
Them wanting to avoid court is perfectly understandable and if a settlement is warranted, then so be it, but I do not think that it should have been kept secret.
If the royal family wanted to stay out of court, then the suit never should have been initiated. A secret deal (no matter what the amount) is corrosive to public trust.
So far it's a partial disclosure of the secret agreement. We don't know IF Prince William donated it to charity, direct transfer from the victimizer to the charity of W choice. I say this because the Princess of Wales ordered her France win to a charity, there's a precedent in that 'family unit'. IOW In the Princess case, the court order indicated that the victimizer had to publicly disclose the money transfer to Kate's charity of choice directly, not the Foundation, to make it fully transparent.
The same in reference to Harry with the alleged claim of The Guardian, he also had a secret agreement, but the word ''apology'' wasn't added to what at that time, 2017, court order, had to have added an apology.
^And I believe that is the correct way to handle it. It doesn?t really matter to me whether William donated the money to charity or not (although I would see it as the right thing to do), it?s the fact that it wasn?t disclosed at the time. Any money received by a working member of the royal family from a corporation?for any reason?should be disclosed to the public in a timely manner.
I thought he couldn?t sink any lower but he keeps proving me wrong. He?s just a very disturbed, despicable man.
^^Harry's lawyers allege that it was a secret agreement because IF NOT, William would have to testify, including making it public all the 150 hacked items between Kate and him. Instead the items (also known as the taped conversations) of 'other victims' (other victims according to the Levison is i.e. WIlliam, Kate, Harry, Chelsy) were delivered to Harbottle and Lewis, trusted law firm of the BRF. WHO were also acting as lawyers to News Of the World. So it was fixed between both parties.
The Levison was on Live TV, everyone was watching here
Watch live - the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html)
Other than Diana's case, the above was the most viewed in history.
Quote from: Ayse on April 25, 2023, 05:19:29 PM
I thought he couldn?t sink any lower but he keeps proving me wrong. He?s just a very disturbed, despicable man.
In my opinion Harry has the right to get compensated for the hacking, he DID get compensation from the Levison according to the GUARDIAN, year 2017, Re: News of The World.
BUT this is a NEW case against the Associated Newspaper, aka The Daily Mail. His lawyers are using News of the World as precedent so the Judge can accept it as pre hearing.
I think after today's hearing the Judge will decide IF it will proceed or not.
ETA: Also if your comment has to do with Chelsy ^, the latest, when Harry came to London for the preliminary first hearings, she allegedly is not available nor wants to be mentioned, he apparently mentioned her then.
Would I agree with you in this case, yes, he should ask for written permission to mention people that are alive.
Quote from: wannable on April 25, 2023, 05:30:07 PM
^^Harry's lawyers allege that it was a secret agreement because IF NOT, William would have to testify, including making it public all the 150 hacked items between Kate and him. Instead the items (also known as the taped conversations) of 'other victims' (other victims according to the Levison is i.e. WIlliam, Kate, Harry, Chelsy) were delivered to Harbottle and Lewis, trusted law firm of the BRF. WHO were also acting as lawyers to News Of the World. So it was fixed between both parties.
The Levison was on Live TV, everyone was watching here
Watch live - the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html)
Other than Diana's case, the above was the most viewed in history.
And I personally find that fix to be inappropriate. If court was not desired, then the RF should have declined to be named in the suit at all. In my opinion, back door deals with corporations are unacceptable for members of the government who receive tax payer funds.
It doesn?t really matter to me what the reason is; good or bad or in between. I can?t speak to how things are done in the UK legally, but in the US, one can settle with the other party without going to trial. Just happened in the US with Murdoch and Fox News. If the same is true in Britain, then the RF could have asked the NOTW to settle without going to trial. If they refused, I?d drop the suit entirely or go to trial. But exchanges of money with the NOTW secretly is inappropriate, regardless of the reason.
Queen Elizabeth II personally threatened Rupert Murdoch's media company with legal proceedings over phone hacking only for her efforts to be undermined by the then Prince Charles, the high court has heard.
Prince Harry said his father intervened because he wanted to ensure the Sun supported his ascension to the throne and Camilla's role as queen consort, and had a "specific long-term strategy to keep the media on side" for "when the time came".
Charles undermined late queen?s plan to sue News UK, Prince Harry tells court | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/charles-undermined-late-queens-plan-to-sue-news-uk-murdoch-sun-prince-harry-tells-court?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5)
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 25, 2023, 06:12:57 PM
And I personally find that fix to be inappropriate. If court was not desired, then the RF should have declined to be named in the suit at all. In my opinion, back door deals with corporations are unacceptable for members of the government who receive tax payer funds.
It doesn?t really matter to me what the reason is; good or bad or in between. I can?t speak to how things are done in the UK legally, but in the US, one can settle with the other party without going to trial. Just happened in the US with Murdoch and Fox News. If the same is true in Britain, then the RF could have asked the NOTW to settle without going to trial. If they refused, I?d drop the suit entirely or go to trial. But exchanges of money with the NOTW secretly is inappropriate, regardless of the reason.
They settled without going to trial. I mean the ''other victims'' who weren't disclosed or in trial settled, hence the secret agreement/settlement. The victims who decided to go on trial - most of them celebs, all their wares were scrutinized item by item on live tv by both teams. Especially because each item can be scrutinized as a. source close to you told me, which is legal in both US/UK, in this case if proved, the victim would have to search quarrel with his/her frenemy who sold him/her to the press or b. yes the victimizer broke the rule and hacked a phone, computer and the sort, not legal.
Harry just disclosed the 20 years ago ''other victims'' which was a secret and is now making new allegations about his daddy.
So, if they settled without going to trial, I fail to see why the fact that there was a settlement would have to remain secret.
Harry?s conduct isn?t related to that fact. I would like to see proof that his father intervened because there was a plot to have positive press coverage from the Sun for Camilla. But that?s an entirely separate issue.
The issue here is whether royals who are publicly funded should be making secret deals with corporations for any reason. I am personally of the opinion that they should not.
What is an out of court settlement UK?
An out of court settlement is an agreement between parties involved in a litigation case that removes the lawsuit and any further litigation proceedings.
^Hence they were a secret ''other victims'' until Harry spoke today.
^ The key word is ''REMOVED''
So then, this happens:
Settlements Made Out of Court Are Private, Rulings Made in Court Are Not. If you settle your claim privately, its results will not be published publicly. If you file a lawsuit and your case has to be decided by a judge and jury, its results will be public record.
So basically, what I posted in the Waleses/Sussexes ''friend'' thread IS what is trending in Social Media. Harry's lawyers are using William QEII and now Pa in Harry's court case. Will they react to this? or ignore Harry and his lawyers? or they allowed Harry and his lawyers? I think we will know sooner rather than later.
I am aware of what a settlement is. If these were all private individuals, I wouldn?t think twice about it. Members of the royal family are not your run of the mill citizens. Accepting funds from a private corporation and not informing the public is unethical. I?m not saying they couldn?t settle. I?m saying that the fact that there was a settlement should have been made public. Not that every tidbit that was caught on tape should have been made public; the fact that money was exchanged should have been.
Sorry, I thought you didn't, I'm reading you wrong, which may happen.
Secret agreement from non lawyer speak is = settlement = in the UK is ''private'', hence W didn't talk about it 'never' or yet. Don't know IF he and Pa will react.
Most of the media is calling a secret agreement rather than an out of court settlement from lawyer to lawyer teams. Harbottle and Lewis happens to be one of the trusted lawyers of the BRF who happens to have been lawyer for the News of the World/Murdoch.
Settlements are also known by a very reduced amount of people, so one lawyer team is from the same by chance lawyer ''firm' that is used by the BRF. Nothing sinister, they settled with both W and H out of court. Harry just blurted this secret. Who knows how many more secrets he will drip drop in the future?
I doubt they?ll respond. I think it?s important that the Guardian asked for a comment, but I don?t think one will be forthcoming. And also that Harry?s problem with the event is not the same problem I have. His problem is that he didn?t receive a personal apology. I don?t think William is that upset about not receiving one because what would it be worth even if given?
Also quite rich to be upset about tabloid intrusion when he intrudes on the lives of others for profit as well.
Since it was ''private'' and W never spoke about it, In my opinion he accepted the ''general'' apology. In my opinion he is not the kind of person that needs a personal apology.
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_social_share_1024x768_scale,f_auto,q_auto:best/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr_110716_murdoch-apology-1col.jpg)
An apology from a man like Rupert Murdoch wouldn?t be high on my list either.
The fact that everyone has sued or done whatever and got themselves taken care of but told Harry to basically roll over and let his wife be abused.
Because it?d be a better LOOK for the family. Because they already have dealings and deals.
SMH, but it?s whatever now. They could?ve chosen to support and help in ways they could in the past they didn?t.
And the media, when he told them to leave his wife alone, they should?ve did it. They didn?t and now they have someone who?s no longer scared of the media because they?ve done just about everything to him already. And having no fear? That makes him dangerous.
Keep going Harry. Bring all of the rags to their knees.
^^ Yes, especially the grave issue of hacking which was proved to be so. I mean the celebs that DID go public, the item by item was so private NOTW just didn't have proof of 'your friend Tom the Peep' told me, which also does happen.
BUT, technically the general apology published in his media outlets allegedly can be enough? Was it also published in Gazette? If so, I wouldn't know if H using ''all'' the precedent is enough for his new Daily Mail case, especially in light that the hacker official statement is denial and he said H lawyers cut/paste a document with a forged signature.
^ I gather from Royal Reporters that went today to the hearing, is that Harry wants to testify in his case against Associated Newspaper (aka Daily Mail), hence his lawyers used the old levison case (aka News of The World) and W and H out of court settlement as a precedent that H has a case. We have to wait and see if the court will accept this part or not and if the case will enter lawsuit mode or not. I haven't checked if the hearing is done, how long will the judge take to decide if it will proceed or not, if the Judge tells H lawyers recommendations to proceed or not, like strike out this and that, add in more info.
In a statement to the court on Tuesday morning, Harry revealed his private suggestions that tabloid journalists should be stopped from attending his 2018 wedding at St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, complaining that he was still owed an "apology from Murdoch".
Prince Harry wanted journalists blocked from wedding to Meghan Markle | Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-harry-journalists-blocked-wedding-meghan-markle-windsor-castle-rupert-murdoch-b1076637.html)
^My question to that would be: if Murdoch did apologize to him personally, would that suddenly make what happened okay? Like, what would come out of that apology other than a feeling of temporary (very temporary, as it was proven) ego-stroking? It?s just bordering on the absurd now.
But if he has proof that the Sun did engage in illegal activities, *that* is something I?m interested in, as anyone who engages in illegal practices to gain information should be up for scrutiny. The other stuff? Just shows his petulance, with which I think everyone is familiar with at this point. Because he has no problem sharing private things about others with little to no care as to how it might affect them personally, so his actions clearly are not based on personal ethics. I think he and Murdoch have more in common than he?d like to admit.
Wait, I'm confused. News of the World is a private company, isn't it? Owned by Murdoch? So the money for William's settlement came from them, right?
Victoria Ward
@victoria_ward
Prince Harry did not inform his brother that he would reveal the existence of his secret (circa GBP1m) settlement from News Group Newspapers in court docs.
In doing so, he also exposed what he claimed was a 'secret agreement' between the palace and NGN
^I don't see anything wrong with out of court settlements, but In my opinion Harry does see a problem, hence his lawyers said it is being used as reference because Harry wants to testify on live court TV. Note: According to The Guardian, Harry also received a settlement, but I find it quite strange he has the need to use his brother rather than himself only.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on April 25, 2023, 10:46:41 PM
Wait, I'm confused. News of the World is a private company, isn't it? Owned by Murdoch? So the money for William's settlement came from them, right?
If I?m not mistaken, News of the World was one of the papers that was owned by News Group, which is owned by Murdoch. That paper is now defunct, but the Sun, also owned by News Group is still around. The News of the World basically collapsed after a scandal in which they were wiretapping various people (William and Harry and their friends among them). Murdoch paid a settlement to William and Harry out of court to keep it quiet and promised them a personal apology. They never received one. Harry took offense and wanted to ban them from his wedding unless Murdoch called to apologize.
Murdoch owned up to (was forced to) breaking the law with News of the World, but states that the same practices do not happen at the Sun. Harry claims otherwise. He?s using evidence from the wiretapping with the NOTW to prove that they?re connected.
I would like to see the hearing documents, because the secret agreement SO FAR is being framed like hush money. Technically and usually for public or private persons, it is to avoid public record archive and knowledge to the wider world. I hope Kate is singing the kumbaya to William, calm and collected. This just doesn't look good. That is why the law around the world invented out of court settlements, which means it will stay private rather than filed. The ongoing trend in social media, W privacy invaded in legal law.
Quote from: wannable on April 25, 2023, 11:07:23 PM
Victoria Ward
@victoria_ward
Prince Harry did not inform his brother that he would reveal the existence of his secret (circa GBP1m) settlement from News Group Newspapers in court docs.
In doing so, he also exposed what he claimed was a 'secret agreement' between the palace and NGN
^I don't see anything wrong with out of court settlements, but In my opinion Harry does see a problem, hence his lawyers said it is being used as reference because Harry wants to testify on live court TV. Note: According to The Guardian, Harry also received a settlement, but I find it quite strange he has the need to use his brother rather than himself only.
I think he?s also claiming that the RF didn?t explain things to him and kept him in the dark at the time and he didn?t realize what was happening until recently.
Harry and William aren?t on speaking terms (ironically enough because of all the private conversations Harry shared with the public without his consent), so it?s hardly surprising he didn?t tell him he?d be saying that in court.
Quote from: wannable on April 25, 2023, 11:24:26 PM
I would like to see the hearing documents, because the secret agreement SO FAR is being framed like hush money. Technically and usually for public or private persons, it is to avoid public record archive and knowledge to the wider world. I hope Kate is singing the kumbaya to William, calm and collected. This just doesn't look good. That is why the law around the world invented out of court settlements, which means it will stay private rather than filed. The ongoing trend in social media, W privacy invaded in legal law.
Well, I?m not sure because William wasn?t the only party involved. Harry was involved too and it doesn?t sound like Murdoch kept his end of the deal either (shocker). So if this deal required a non-disclosure clause and Harry broke it, I?m not sure it would count for much since Murdoch broke the other half of the deal before Harry did.
Was involved, right and does not have to have a symbiotic relationship because he is not a senior working royal.
Thanks ^ you made me think out of the box. Harry wants to testify to drag the media, feel good vilifying.
William cannot, he will be king, needs to have acceptable relationship hence he accepted the settlement and that was the end of it.
?Secret agreement? with Rupert Murdoch ?smoothed way? for Camilla to become Queen (https://archive.is/Fhn3A)
The Telegraph
Quote from: wannable on April 25, 2023, 08:48:41 PM
^ The key word is ''REMOVED''
So then, this happens:
Settlements Made Out of Court Are Private, Rulings Made in Court Are Not. If you settle your claim privately, its results will not be published publicly. If you file a lawsuit and your case has to be decided by a judge and jury, its results will be public record.
So basically, what I posted in the Waleses/Sussexes ''friend'' thread IS what is trending in Social Media. Harry's lawyers are using William QEII and now Pa in Harry's court case. Will they react to this? or ignore Harry and his lawyers? or they allowed Harry and his lawyers? I think we will know sooner rather than later.
I read this thread and read it again and one thing popped out at me.....is Harry in his wrapped way trying to *blackmail* the royal family into giving him what he wants? Now he is pulling HM ( who is dead, wonder if he is stable enough to realize that?) and his dad and his brother into this mess again. Harry is fighting rageful, he is very angry at his brother, he imho will not listen to anything good about his brother or father, he is hell bent on doing as much damage as possible to them and we have all seen and read and heard it for the last 3 years and there is NO spin that can change that either. Is it the HI/HO that he still wants, more money, more titles and a free home in the UK or the throne, so what does Harry want and believe me it is NOT an *apology* either. There is something very seriously wrong with Harry and his thinking for he could keep doing the same thing over again with other secrets that he knows about in the royal family. I think this is very far from over and I just wonder what he or Meghan will pull out of their hats on May 6th next.
Quote from: Nightowl on April 26, 2023, 05:36:40 AM
Charles now needs to be the King, not the dad as Harry is an adult and he alone is responsible for his decisions and the consequences.
If Harry and that is a big IF really goes to the Coronation will he do something stupid like denounce his dad and brother in the middle of the ceremonies? After all, all we have to do is look at this past behavior and never put anything past him at all and the same with his wife. I know some will think I lost it about Harry yet he has shown the world he wants to be noticed and important and up there with William in all things. I suspect Harry is not a rational human being anymore, he is not thinking with a full deck, a very weak angry rageful man and I just wonder if he even knows why he is acting this way.
Did Harry (or Meghan) do anything to denounce or publicly embarrass the late Queen or Prince of Wales at the last Commonwealth Day Service they attended? Did either of them, or Harry alone, do anything at the late Queen?s Diamond Jubilee, or at Prince Philip?s funeral? Or at HM?s funeral in WA, or at the internment at St George?s.
No to all those. So why jump to conclusions and pretend Harry is some raving maniac ready to do something terrible and public at the Coronation?
Why don?t we have a bet on it? I?d win.
^ It is my opinion only and I ask NO ONE to agree with me ever. Harry is out of control and a dangerous man, he is a druggie and has even admitted to doing various drugs which over time makes him more paranoid than ever. I put NOTHING past him ever...the way he treated his grandparents tells me a lot about him and how he views not just his family but people in general.
So now I am done with this thread.......
He's not that out of control. He knows what he is doing.
^I somewhat agree in the sense that he?s doing it very deliberately, but I also don?t think he?s a very forward-thinking person. He seems impulsive and doesn?t consider the consequences of his actions or maybe it?s just that he doesn?t think about how they?ll affect anyone but himself.
True but he was able to control his impulses back when he depended on Charles, he was polite in public, he claimed to like Camilla etc. So I dont think he's as out of control as he sometimes seems. He knows waht he can get away wth. He was careful to say that the person who made the remarks about his son's colour was not teh queen or Philip because he knew it would look bad to attack them.
^That?s true. He was (and still is) always careful not to attack certain people. There?s definitely malice in the sense that he?s really very angry. I think he genuinely believes that his father, brother, and stepmother wish him harm.
It?s clear that he doesn?t believe the well-being of the Firm should take precedence over his desires, a sentiment I believe to be fair. Not everyone is meant for a lifestyle of being a supporting character, nor should they settle for that if they don?t want to. But where he loses me is that he sees this as a specific conspiracy to harm him and his wife. To me it?s not specific at all: there?s a hierarchy in a monarchy. He and his wife aren?t high enough in it to be the main focus of anyone at BP. That sounds harsh, but it?s a consequence of the very structure not any personal attack. Yet he doesn?t seem to understand that.
Its hard to tell. Its like i feel about Diana, she was so volatile that you wondered if she eve had a settled thought about anything. But Harry' was IMO careful in what he siad, but he knows that now he has money in the US, he can poke rude remarks about his father brother and stepmother from a safe distance.
^Yes, I see the similarities for sure. I see attempts to manipulate the narrative in your favor and only seeing things through your own lenses, conveniently leaving out your part in the entire ordeal.
But yes, financial stability is a huge component. He has it and now feels strong enough to do the things he?s always wanted to. More power to him. I personally don?t see it working out well in his favor, but it?s his choice.
More power to him? DO you mean you're supporing his nasty mean minded attacks on his brother and others in the family? The lies he has told, the way he swings around according to what he wants to be seen at a given time. Even if he has a genuine case for being angry with Charles, IMO, he does not have the right to make it a public spectacle. and even if he has such a case, how can he be justified in his attacks on William, who has just been born 2 years ahead of him.
Thanks for answering my questions, HistoryGirl2. I have to say that, in this specific case, with these specific circumstances, I think it's all right for the terms of William's settlement to be kept quiet. Normally, I'm all for transparency, but this is not money from the taxpayers where the public has a right to know how it's being spent, nor did a corporation approach William with a bribe. This is a private legal settlement where William (and others) were 'done wrong'. His privacy was not invaded specifically because William is royal, but because he is famous (although I recognize that he is famous because he is royal), but NotW hacked into other people's privacy too, didn't they, people who were not royal but celebrities and such. These other famous people would have the expectation of keeping their legal settlements private, so in this case I think William should too.
Or maybe I'm making it a bigger deal than it is :flower:
^^Truthfully? It doesn?t really matter to me what Harry does or doesn?t do. I?m not a supporter or detractor of the royal family as a whole, mainly because it doesn?t really affect me as I am not a citizen in the Commonwealth. I don?t know anyone in the RF personally, so while I can empathize, it doesn?t affect me on a personal level.
The Harry/Meghan story only really intrigues me because I?m curious to see what (if any) effect this has on the continuation of the BRF. It is one of the oldest monarchies to still be in power, and from a historical standpoint, I enjoy seeing how it changes/evolves to fit the modern world. It?s not foreign to see sons of kings engage in jealous attempts to undermine their fathers and brothers. When compared with those instances, Harry?s attacks don?t really compare in their vindictiveness.
But we also live in a new world, with social media and more democratic engagement. So I am curious to see how this all turns out?for the jealous second son and the heir. So far, it hasn?t turned out so well for the spare (it rarely does, but there are some instances?)
Quote from: Nightowl on April 26, 2023, 05:36:40 AM
I read this thread and read it again and one thing popped out at me.....is Harry in his wrapped way trying to *blackmail* the royal family into giving him what he wants? Now he is pulling HM ( who is dead, wonder if he is stable enough to realize that?) and his dad and his brother into this mess again. Harry is fighting rageful, he is very angry at his brother, he imho will not listen to anything good about his brother or father, he is hell bent on doing as much damage as possible to them and we have all seen and read and heard it for the last 3 years and there is NO spin that can change that either. Is it the HI/HO that he still wants, more money, more titles and a free home in the UK or the throne, so what does Harry want and believe me it is NOT an *apology* either. There is something very seriously wrong with Harry and his thinking for he could keep doing the same thing over again with other secrets that he knows about in the royal family. I think this is very far from over and I just wonder what he or Meghan will pull out of their hats on May 6th next.
I agree with you. I think Harry's anger and jealousy are so deep-rooted at this point, that even if the Royal Family gave him all these things--HIHO, money, higher ranking, etc.--he would not be happy. He is deeply invested in seeing himself as a victim and wanting vengeance against everyone that he thinks has ever slighted him. I'm sorry for Charles, but I think the best course would be to cut all contact with the Sussexes and just not have any more to do with them.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on April 26, 2023, 12:39:17 PM
Thanks for answering my questions, HistoryGirl2. I have to say that, in this specific case, with these specific circumstances, I think it's all right for the terms of William's settlement to be kept quiet. Normally, I'm all for transparency, but this is not money from the taxpayers where the public has a right to know how it's being spent, nor did a corporation approach William with a bribe. This is a private legal settlement where William (and others) were 'done wrong'. His privacy was not invaded specifically because William is royal, but because he is famous (although I recognize that he is famous because he is royal), but NotW hacked into other people's privacy too, didn't they, people who were not royal but celebrities and such. These other famous people would have the expectation of keeping their legal settlements private, so in this case I think William should too.
Or maybe I'm making it a bigger deal than it is :flower:
That?s a good counter-argument. I do admit that my main concern is about the precedent it could set. If this was a one-time deal, no harm, no foul. But I would hate to see this become a norm.
And you?re right about Harry and provide an excellent summation of his character?he is invested in seeing himself as a victim. Once that mentality has set in, there?s no reasoning with an individual. He?s always been self-destructive though, so the only thing that?s really changed is the methodology of how he is destroying himself.
For his professional career, it would be advised to pivot. The public is tired of the whining, but I don?t think he can help himself. He never grew into an adult mentally.
Oh, I agree with you, HistoryGirl2, that transparency is super important for royals--and government officials. I just see this particular set of circumstances as being exceptional. Certainly any money that comes from the taxpayers should be accountable and everything above board.
It's very sad about Harry, but as long as he and Meghan seem set on damaging the Monarchy and the family as much as possible, then I just don't see how the family can keep having contact with them. After the Coronation, they ought to cut all contact.
^It?s a tough one right, because even now when there?s not much in the way of contact, Harry is still revealing information about William without his consent, and he will continue to do so. That?s something that is difficult for William because Harry knows William will not attack him back publicly. He already refuses to speak to Harry, so what more can be done? Nothing, unfortunately.
But the irony is that Harry is only destroying his own reputation. He and his wife are overwhelmingly unpopular because they?ve been caught out on lies and hypocrisy. This lawsuit being one of them. Anger at press intrusion into someone?s personal life without consent, while he?s happy to print private conversations and anecdotes of people without their consent. They love the media just as much, if not more than the RF because their financial well-being depends on it.
I don?t really see Charles or Camilla having any kind of extensive contact with him at the coronation, to be honest. They?ll be too busy and he?s not staying long. After that, I don?t see any instance in which it would be anything other than inappropriate for them to attend a family event, so I don?t think they will.
It's all so incredibly sad to see how Harry's behavior of sharing private information about his family is damaging his reputation.
@TLLK I do think it sad to ruin all your familial relationships because of your own ego, but it?s all too common. I know that maybe we?re past the age where a reputation meant something, but I would personally be absolutely mortified if people viewed me as someone they couldn?t trust to speak around because I might go report it to People magazine or Netflix?s Top Ten.
But we also have to keep in mind that he?s changed his environment. In the aristocracy, it is an absolute betrayal to go to the media to tell personal secrets. In Hollywood, it?s all part of creating buzz and maintaining exposure. He?s joined the reality TV, influencer crowd. New environment, new rules.
Today's social media trend with W settlement is this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FupLDDnXsAAPGFY?format=jpg&name=small)
In another note related to Harry's lawsuit, apparently The Guardian got it 50/50 right/wrong. Harry want's a personal apology ✅ Harry also received a settlement 2017 ❌
The RR's that were actually at the hearing yesterday said the above, that is why since Harry didn't settle out of court he is where he is today.
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 03:00:56 PM
In another note related to Harry's lawsuit, apparently The Guardian got it 50/50 right/wrong. Harry want's a personal apology ✅ Harry also received a settlement 2017 ❌
The RR's that were actually at the hearing yesterday said the above, that is why since Harry didn't settle out of court he is where he is today.
Where are the sources for these allegations by you? Links please.
^Hmm, so then that might change things. Are you allowed to reveal the terms of a private settlement that you weren?t a part of?
Harry is. He used it yesterday in his hearing.
I?m interested to see how the judge rules on this because there?s a lot of moving parts here to consider.
I?m also not sure about his argument saying the family kept him in the dark about the whole thing. His own lawyer states that he was aware of the phone hacking, and that William knew more about it (gosh will the pettiness ever cease 😂) but that he was in Afghanistan on active duty at the time. So, he did know but didn?t make an effort to find out more about it. Sounds like a personal choice to me.
Simon Vigar was at the hearing yesterday. Too many official social media accounts that ARE in royal rota. All have said Harry did not want to settle like W, he wanted to go to court, and that is what he is actually doing. He is at his hearings wishing the judge decides for a Go.
Simon Vigar https://twitter.com/i/status/1650896197685526530
Washington Post Prince William paid settlement by Rupert Murdoch in phone hacking case - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/25/prince-william-phone-hacking-settlement-murdoch/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main)
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 02:57:48 PM
Today's social media trend with W settlement is this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FupLDDnXsAAPGFY?format=jpg&name=small)
Please provide a link to the social media post that you have shared. Thank you.
Harry claims Wills 'quietly' settled hacking case for a 'very large sum' - The Mail (https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/royals/sussexes/274673/harry-claims-wills-quietly-settled-hacking-case-for-a-very-large-sum?collection=16993&&contentLayout=5pm%20Update)
Richard Eden
Subscribe through Mail Plus
A lot of suits are settled quietly out of court. Harry is trying to make this appear nefarious when it's perfectly normal. He is very tiresome with his petulant, unrelenting attacks.
^I wonder if representatives from the family will have to testify to the veracity of that statement. News Group claims there was no private deal. Now, I wouldn?t bet money on anyone associated with Rupert Murdoch to lie if it would mean staying out of court, so I wonder if the judge might ask for verification from the family.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on April 26, 2023, 05:14:45 PM
A lot of suits are settled quietly out of court. Harry is trying to make this appear nefarious when it's perfectly normal. He is very tiresome with his petulant, unrelenting attacks.
In the UK 90% Settlements is out of court avoiding a lawsuit
Source: Read between 20 to 40 pages and learn
https://www.gov.uk/apply-transcript-court-tribunal-hearing#:~:text=You%20may%20be%20able%20to,2d%20of%20the%20guidance%20notes.
*****
Quote
The Duke of Sussex appears to have 'factual inconsistencies' in his legal claim about being a victim of hacking, a senior judge said.
Mr Justice Fancourt said he has concerns about Harry's account of an alleged secret deal by the royal family, which he says prevented him bringing legal action earlier.
The judge questioned why details of Harry's legal claim filed in 2020 failed to include the alleged secret deal which the duke now says means the publisher accepted it would not try to block his compensation claim because it was too old.
The judge added: 'Another thing that is troubling is what appears to be a factual inconsistency in the current pleaded cases that the Duke of Sussex did not have the knowledge [of the alleged wrongdoing] before 2019 and your proposed amendment seems to say he would have brought the claim in 2012 but for the secret agreement.'
Harry's barrister, David Sherborne, said the claim in 2012 would have been 'totally different'. He said there was a 'draft' of an amended particulars of claim which contains the alleged secret deal.
The judge replied: 'I am talking about the factual inconsistencies in the case as pleaded.'
Prince Harry?s phone-hacking claim has ?inconsistencies? (https://archive.ph/I4VC0#selection-887.0-913.91)
The Times, it's quite complicated the amount of cases Harry has?! Murdoch group, Daily Mail Group, The Daily Mirror. All 3 separate plus the Home Office, 4.
^I agree with the judge. There are inconsistencies that he needs to answer for. On the one hand, he seems to admit he was aware, but this secret deal stopped him. Yet he made no mention of it earlier and has yet to provide proof that it exists. I think some clarification should be done because these claims appear muddled and vague.
Quote
The firm represented both brothers in their phone hacking claim until 2019 when, by his own admission, Harry became frustrated with the slow progress and decided to go his own way with a new solicitor.
lawyer Gerrard Tyrell, of Harbottle & Lewis
In revealing that his brother 'was paid a very large sum' by Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers (NGN) in 2020, and claiming the palace had a 'secret agreement' with the media mogul, the implication is that William settled out of court because he was in cahoots with the press.
Yet as is ever the case with claims made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, recollections may vary. Since 90 per cent of civil claims are settled out of court in the UK, William merely did the same as most phone hacking victims in opting for a payout rather than going to trial.
Far from being in hock to Murdoch, he appears to have taken around '1 million out of NGN's coffers while sparing himself the ordeal of a court appearance.
Camilla Tominey
Blindsided by Prince Harry again, the Royals must be feeling hacked off (https://archive.is/JTAwc#selection-3201.0-3213.154)
Quote
They include the claim, which has not been denied by Kensington Palace, that Prince William secretly received a large payout from the company in 2020 to compensate him for his phone being hacked.
he has once again claimed that his own interests were sacrificed to protect the public image of his stepmother
Victoria Warde
The 10 revelations from Prince Harry's witness statement in the Murdoch media case (https://archive.vn/qiD8Q)
Basically if one reads both articles, Harry is very impatient. He left on his own accord, the latter article he moans in his 31 pages that the 'system' is slow and obstructs.
IF he would have stayed focused in the same lane as W, he would have gotten his settlement.
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 10:33:48 PM
Basically if one reads both articles, Harry is very impatient. He left on his own accord, the latter article he moans in his 31 pages that the 'system' is slow and obstructs.
IF he would have stayed focused in the same lane as W, he would have gotten his settlement.
Is it true that Harry's settlement would have been less than William's as his phone was not hacked as many times as his brother's?
That is a tricky question, Harry want's GBP 200,000.
18 years ago the herein quote, which royal watchers rather than royal rota is discussing the tricky question via social media. Source: use the search button in Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok....royal watchers, citizens like you and me who have been following for 10 or 20 years plus are doing their maths.
Quote
Former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman hacked Kate Middleton's phone 155 times, a court has heard. The phone-hacking trial was told Mr Goodman first hacked the now-Duchess of Cambridge's voicemail in December 2005. He also hacked Prince William 35 times and Prince Harry on nine occasions
From the Guardian newspaper.
Queen Elizabeth II personally threatened Rupert Murdoch?s media company with legal proceedings over phone hacking only for her efforts to be undermined by the then Prince Charles, the high court has heard. Prince Harry said his father intervened because he wanted to ensure the Sun supported his ascension to the throne and Camilla?s role as queen consort, and had a ?specific long-term strategy to keep the media on side? for ?when the time came?.
The Duke of Sussex made the claims on Tuesday as part of his ongoing legal action against News Group Newspapers. The legal case lays bare Harry?s allegations of the deals between senior members of the British royal family and tabloid newspapers. The prince said his father, the king, had personally demanded he stop his legal cases against British newspaper outlets when they were filed in late 2019.
The court filings state: ?I was summoned to Buckingham Palace and specifically told to drop the legal actions because they have an ?effect on all the family?.? He added this was ?a direct request (or rather demand) from my father? and senior royal aides.
In 2017, Harry decided to seek an apology from Murdoch?s News UK for phone hacking, receiving the backing of Queen Elizabeth II and his brother. His submission said: ?William was very understanding and supportive and agreed that we needed to do it. He therefore suggested that I seek permission from ?granny?. I spoke to her shortly afterwards and said something along the lines of: ?Are you happy for me to push this forward, do I have your permission?? and she said: ?Yes.??
Having received the support of Queen Elizabeth II, Harry said he asked the royal family?s lawyers to write to the Murdoch executives Rebekah Brooks and Robert Thomson and seek a resolution. Yet the company refused to apologise and, out of desperation, Harry discussed banning reporters from Murdoch-owned outlets from attending his wedding to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. In 2018, Sally Osman, Queen Elizabeth II?s communications secretary, wrote an email to Harry explaining that she was willing to threaten legal action in the name of the monarch.
The email read: ?The queen has given her consent to send a further note, by email, to Robert Thomson, CEO of News Corporation and Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK. Her Majesty has approved the wording, which essentially says there is increasing frustration at their lack of response and engagement and, while we?ve tried to settle without involving lawyers, we will need to reconsider our stance unless we receive a viable proposal.?
However, there was no apology, which Harry ascribes to a secret deal between the royal family and senior Murdoch executives to keep proceedings out of court. Harry claimed that, shortly before his wedding, he was informed Murdoch?s company would not apologise to the queen and the rest of the royal family at that stage because ?they would have to admit that not only was the News of the World involved in phone hacking but also the Sun?, which they ?couldn?t afford to do? as it would undermine their continued denials that illegal activity took place at the Sun.
Harry now believes his father and royal courtiers were prioritising positive coverage of his father and Camilla in the Sun, rather than seeking to back his legal claims. He said: ?[T]hey had a specific long-term strategy to keep the media (including [Sun publisher] NGN) onside in order to smooth the way for my stepmother (and father) to be accepted by the British public as queen consort (and king respectively) when the time came ? anything that might upset the applecart in this regard (including the suggestion of resolution of our phone-hacking claims) was to be avoided at all costs.?
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 10:52:09 PM
That is a tricky question, Harry want's GBP 200,000.
18 years ago the herein quote, which royal watchers rather than royal rota is discussing the tricky question via social media. Source: use the search button in Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok....royal watchers, citizens like you and me who have been following for 10 or 20 years plus are doing their maths.
Chelsy Davy 60 calls to his mobile. Allegedly She won't support him. The latest news when he came to London, he called her on a friends phone rather than his phone, she was polite and diplomatic, Ends. ''I am over that, moved on''
I rather believe the combo of The Telegraph and The Times rather than The Guardian. Camilla Tominey said Harry admitted that he split from William and Harbottle because they were too slow. This type of lawsuits are slow. The end result is what matters, W got his settlement, H didn't and now is battling.
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 10:57:14 PM
Chelsy Davy 60 calls to his mobile. Allegedly She won't support him. The latest news when he came to London, he called her on a friends phone rather than his phone, she was polite and diplomatic, Ends. ''I am over that, moved on''
If this is true, I don?t blame her. Who would want to relive that nightmare? Again, uncomfirmed, but if she did decline it that way, so proud of her for having moved on. I also read an interview a while back where she declined to comment on their time together. Class act. She could have made herself a pretty penny selling their story.
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 11:02:29 PM
I rather believe the combo of The Telegraph and The Times rather than The Guardian. Camilla Tominey said Harry admitted that he split from William and Harbottle because they were too slow. This type of lawsuits are slow. The end result is what matters, W got his settlement, H didn't and now is battling.
I?m a bit confused. Is this in doubt? Harry said himself that he wasn?t getting the apology he wanted from Murdoch and he told William he wanted to sue himself and William said he should speak with the Queen about it.
To be honest, it?s hard to follow his line of thinking a lot of the time. He?s insinuating that the bad coverage he gets is because he refused the settlement and William and Charles didn?t and that it was part of a conspiracy to make sure they never got bad press. It?s almost as if he?s unaware that in a court of law you have to prove things. It?s not an Oprah interview. What kind of counsel is he receiving? I?m glad the judge brought attention to the inconsistencies.
Where is the written consent from the Queen Elizabeth II. The Guardian claims the lawyer was willing to write (sue, make a lawsuit, etc.) in behalf of the monarch, that Harry this and that, but where is the proof of QEII? They never wrote anything in behalf of the previous Monarch. HE would have used it. He is trashing his dad, Camilla, William in writing, said his grandma had approved, where is the approval?
^Well, that?s where I think if I were the judge, I?d demand proof of all this because as it stands, it?s just pure hearsay and we all know how shaky Harry?s memory of events can be.
Quote from: wannable on April 26, 2023, 11:22:35 PM
Where is the written consent from the Queen Elizabeth II. The Guardian claims the lawyer was willing to write (sue, make a lawsuit, etc.) in behalf of the monarch, that Harry this and that, but where is the proof of QEII? They never wrote anything in behalf of the previous Monarch. HE would have used it. He is trashing his dad, Camilla, William in writing, said his grandma had approved, where is the approval?
Harry appears to have submitted the email he received from the late Queen?s Comms Sec (she is not a lawyer, but a civil servant within BP Household) into court documents. He quotes the main text of the email. The Comms Sec is a senior official of the Royal Household. She would hardly have been communicating with Harry on the issue without permission from the Queen herself.
I suppose the email is in the 31 pages?!
^But does this email make reference to the secret agreement and what the terms were? The agreement is the crux of his argument. He claims he wasn?t allowed to sue prior because of the agreement. The judge asks his solicitor why he never made mention of it when he initially sued. And also that he claims not to have had knowledge of wrongdoing before 2019, which would be contradictory if he said what held him back was he deal; implying that he was aware of the wrongdoing.
And if the deal is the reason why he couldn?t sue before and not actually lack of knowledge of wrongdoing, then proof should be required about the secret deal. News Group claims nothing was agreed about that, so that?s why I wonder if members of the Palace?s legal team would be subpoenaed to testify.
If you read the article of the Times, Harry supposedly (supposedly no, it IS RECORDED in the hearing, his own lawyers went nuts with the back and forth of years of knowing) knew 2012, 2019 (when he separated from W), 2020, but decided to add it now April 2023. (by law it is too late, the too late deadline we've been reading, hearing for sometime)
The journalist did a good job separating by year/paragraph that H lawyers, meaning H said in the hearing that he knew about the settlement negotiations, let's call it like that since 2012. So Harry was on course like W, but split with W 2019, Camilla T says he felt it was too slow. The Guardian says its the men in Grey in behalf of C to make C look good, but then the UK Gov Page is with Camilla Tominey with the stat of 90% of civil lawsuits are settled out of court...that means mathematically every week.
It is no wonder the Judge wants more clarification. Hearing continuous....that is how it ends in the Times article.
^I expect ?inconsistencies? with him, but I?m really quite shocked that a solicitor would go up in front of a judge like this. And I?d imagine he could afford the best.
I?m interested to hear about it. I would like to know if there was money exchanged to keep bad stories out of the papers because that?s bribery. That?s what he is insinuating with his comments. I would like proof because, if true, that is unacceptable. It?s like the racism claim. You can?t just drop a bomb like that to titillate and not tell us the whole of the events. These are serious allegations.
The Sun and the Daily Mail are the only tabloids to date that have claimed they are sitting on bad stories. With warning shots fired to Harry's, with little phrases like ''friends'' are loyal, he better fillintheblank.
Scary stuff.
One would think judging by much of the commentary that that fiend in human form, Prince Harry is accusing a fine and upstanding news organisation of telling lies and hacking into people?s private telephone conversations. No, no no. That would never, never never happen in a million years! Rupert Murdoch just closed down the News of the World simply because the newspaper was too honest for its own good, not because of any wrongdoing!
I can remember much of the same sort of thing as has been reported with this case against a newspaper empire by an extremely biased media when Meghan was suing the DM and Sunday Mail. She?s done this wrong, solicitors did not do that, no proof of certain things, misremembered that, the Palace not backing this or that story etc. The tabloids practically rejoicing in hoping to bring out the champagne!. Plus the Twitter mob, including qualified lawyers, online predicting a complete defeat for her.
And yet Meghan won.
With the Samantha defamation case that ex barrister Tom Bowyer predicted that Meghan should be ?very worried? at the thought that her half sister would ?have the power to force Meghan and Harry to give testimony?. I note he was silent when the Florida judge dismissed much of Samantha?s case. And has been silent about it since. And the media have remained pretty quiet about this particular case as well.
UGH, Bower and Dan Wootton together on that failing British news channel. But here it is, back in February!
Meghan Markle 'should be VERY WORRIED' over defamation case ruling | Tom Bower explains - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbx4MEWOvkk)
Plus News Group Newspapers [NGN], which Harry and the others are suing, is part of News UK, which also owns The Sun and The Times. Unbiased reporting indeed.
^A newspaper or news organization can report on things that deal with their parent organization and it doesn?t mean they?re lying. Happens all the time here in the US. The Times did the appropriate thing and included the disclaimer that they are owned by News Group.
Additionally, the Times reported actual questions asked by the judge himself, not their own interpretation of the case. It doesn?t mean Harry is going to lose the right to take the case to trial. It means that the judge, like some posters here, are confused about the claims that are being made.
I speak for myself when I say that I take claims of bribery and back door deals quite seriously. As I mentioned before, I?m uncomfortable with the entire thing. So, if Harry has proof that this deal occurred and the terms, I am very interested in finding out the truth behind it. However, I am not going to take his word for it. Everyone else is free to do as they wish.
I do believe Meghan was caught saying things that were less than factual in her case, as well. She still won based on privacy and copyright law in the UK.
I?m interested in facts. Facts that can be proven or disproven. Harry having to prove the claims he?s making isn?t a hate crime or proof that there?s a conspiracy to attack him at every turn. It means he?s being treated like every other claimant, but I suppose for a prince used to special treatment, it must feel like that.
^ As usual this couple just love to create drama and trouble for the royal family all for the sake of keeping themselves in the news and rehashing old news and telling lies again. There will NEVER be enough money in their bank account to satisfy them or full fill that need for money...money is their God and believe me I know all to well someone like that....Integrity and Honesty come first....then everything else.
Harry is so jealous of his brother and he is reeking of jealousy that it is taking over his life...take way Harry's money what does he have then..or who is he?
UK Newspaper Group Admits It Unlawfully Gathered Information On Prince Harry | HuffPost Latest News (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-harry-british-tabloid-illegal-news-gathering_n_645b71ebe4b018d846ba8f86)
LONDON (AP) ? The publisher of British tabloid the Daily Mirror has acknowledged and apologized for unlawfully gathering information about Prince Harry in its reporting, and said it warrants compensation, at the outset of the prince?s first phone hacking trial Wednesday.
The admission was made in court filings outlining Mirror Group Newspapers? defense. The group continued to deny that it hacked phones to intercept voicemail messages, and said that Harry and three less-well-known celebrities brought their claims beyond a time limit.
Second day of the hacking trial at the High Court in London, involving Prince Harry and the Daily Mirror newspaper group.
Mirror hacking trial to hear of press intrusion claims - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65548266)
Day two of a trial at the High Court in London over alleged unlawful information gathering by journalists employed by the publisher of the Daily Mirror is getting under way
Prince Harry is one of several high-profile figures bringing claims against Mirror Group Newspapers over stories published between 1991 and 2011
They allege the paper was involved in phone hacking, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities
The Duke of Sussex is set to give evidence in court later this year
On Wednesday, the Mirror publisher apologised to the Duke of Sussex for unlawful information gathering on one occasion
But MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in the cases being examined at the trial, including Harry's.
So far what I'm understanding is out of the 31 Harry points, The Daily Mirror acknowledged/apologized to 3/31, stating the other 28 were either by statements by his staff (JLP) or himself.
Quote from: Curryong on May 10, 2023, 01:36:21 PM
UK Newspaper Group Admits It Unlawfully Gathered Information On Prince Harry | HuffPost Latest News (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-harry-british-tabloid-illegal-news-gathering_n_645b71ebe4b018d846ba8f86)
LONDON (AP) ? The publisher of British tabloid the Daily Mirror has acknowledged and apologized for unlawfully gathering information about Prince Harry in its reporting, and said it warrants compensation, at the outset of the prince?s first phone hacking trial Wednesday.
The admission was made in court filings outlining Mirror Group Newspapers? defense. The group continued to deny that it hacked phones to intercept voicemail messages, and said that Harry and three less-well-known celebrities brought their claims beyond a time limit.
I?m not really sure what this is supposed to mean from the Daily Mirror. We broke the law only a couple of times, but not all of time? I?m just confused by this.
Quote from: wannable on May 11, 2023, 05:01:47 PM
So far what I'm understanding is out of the 31 Harry points, The Daily Mirror acknowledged/apologized to 3/31, stating the other 28 were either by statements by his staff (JLP) or himself.
@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 11, 2023, 06:29:30 PM
@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?
This is one story. Another referenced Prince Michael of Kent?s finances, which the Mirror group didn?t even bother to defend after his legal team came after them. They simply gave him a payout.
Sherborne now talks about a 2001 Daily Mirror story about actress Amanda Holden and her then husband Les Dennis, the comedian.
He says they were a high profile couple who had been married for several years.
He references a Daily Mirror article from March 2001 - ?Amanda?s fury over her friend?s ?fondness? for Les? - which he says in legal documents was written by ?prolific phone hacker? James Scott.
Scott and the paper paid the private investigator firm TDI more than ?1,000 in the period before or shortly after the article?s publication, Sherborne says in the documents.
Sherborne tells the court it is ?quite clear? the information for the story was obtained by voicemail interception.
After lawyers for the couple wrote to the-then editor Piers Morgan complaining, MGN made no attempt to defend the claim, instead publishing an apology and paying their legal costs, the documents show.
Sherborne argues this is a similar pattern to that with the story about Prince Michael of Kent - that the newspaper is sufficiently confident to publish, but when challenged has to ?back down? because ?they realise they can?t possibly defend their source because it?s illegal?.
It apologized for a February 2004 article in Sunday People that described ?royal romeo Prince Harry? romancing two ?stunning? models at London's Chinawhite nightclub ?during his boozy night out.?
The publisher said an investigator was hired to engage in unlawful activity, but it said the 75-pound ($95) fee suggested little work was done.
?MGN unreservedly apologizes and accepts that the Duke of Sussex is entitled to appropriate compensation for it,? attorney Andrew Green wrote.
In 2015, publishers of The Mirror printed a front-page apology for phone hacking and tripled its victim compensation fund to 12 million pounds ($15 million).
(Harry had just started dating his longterm girlfriend Chelsy Davy at the time this lie was published.)
What it?s all about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65547034
Note the amount this particular newspaper group has had to pay out in compensation for just one case brought against it in 2015.
^Gotcha. Thanks,
@Curryong! Forgive the dumb question but how exactly do the Daily Mirror plan to defend themselves? Other than the excuse of it being too late to sue, they claim that sometimes journalists used illegal acts but not always. Are they planning on giving up their sources for these stories in court?
From what I have read some of their defence will be that whatever was done illegally in the ?information? gathering area is on the particular journalists involved when they brought the story to their editors for publication. The chief editors, who included Piers Morgan, knew absolutely nothing of what these journalists were doing. Hardly surprisingly, this has been disputed.
Harry is due to give testimony in court in mid June about his part of the case. There are of course several other people suing in this class action. The whole thing has only just begun so we will see in the next few weeks how things develop and what this newspaper group?s defence is going to be. I?ll be keeping my eyes and ears open on this one and hopefully some British lawyers will be commenting on it online.
^How cowardly and unethical. However, that?s pretty much synonymous with Piers Morgan at this point. To just hang journalists to dry as if that kind of thing wasn?t expected of them and condoned by the editors themselves. I will wait for the evidence, but traditionally, I cannot see multiple journalists doing this unless it was common practice in the newsroom and well-known to the bosses.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 11, 2023, 06:29:30 PM
@wannable: do you know which points the Mirror admits to? Is there reference to specific stories?
Let's wait, that was the first day. Second day there's 100 plus Harry points, latest Telegraph article.
To date, there seems to be 'still' less than a handful of hacking. I gather from the sampling, JLP (KP) Harry himself, Nightclub goers, paid people following in public a public person, a lot of anger about Diana reporting, which the Mirror copy/pasted copyrights purchased from an originator, this last part of purchasing originator according to the Telegraph is most of the points. In reference to paid people following in public a public person, it's not illegal or unlawful. Katie Nicholl is the same age as William, she followed William, Kate, Harry and Chelsy to polo events, nightclubs, hence her meritocracy to getting the job at the Daily Mail. She discovered more than just royalty, she discovered what she called the Williamites, the Harryites, the ladies bathroom drugs going on, who did and did not, etc. It's in the RIF archives, in Google archives of 2000's.
What I find more juicy about Harry's statement is he loved (or still loves) Chelsy, he wanted to wed her. Harry and Chelsy were followed by a paid person to Mozambique, not illegal, the person stayed at the same hotel as the couple, not illegal, caught them smoking canabis, reported it. Things started going South. Harry has the Right to sue hacking, but Harry has to take responsibility also in many public behaviour instances. He want's bad and ugly not to be reported, well he has to behave in public. Too young then, yes, wild parties, yes. It's historical and re opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it will be good for himself, don't care for the media, they will always exist.
The titanic job of the Mirror will be/is now to study each point, search the past, check the originator....100 plus points is a lot. It's like the broken thumb, Harry claims he was hacked, Mirror says there were people with him when he broke his thumb. Harry want's to out who told the media about his thumb. This example goes with what not hacked but leaked.
Third day of the trial, at which the defendants (Mirror group lawyers) begin their defence.
Prince Harry: Claimants a 'long way' from proving case, Mirror tells trial - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65566057)
I'll give a recalling of Katie Nicholl, when she got paid the historical GBP 250,000 (a quarter of a Million pounds, no other reporter has had that pay for a royal wedding 1 day reporting) to be the star reporter at William and Kate wedding, she then cashed in months later detail reporting the 'hard job' she had to do since age 22 to land the job as a royal reporter. She said she DID NOT sit at her apprentice DM desk waiting, she WENT OUT to the places the brothers go, BEFRIENDED the doorman, the barman, the maids, the janitor, who then would call her, ''X is here, she then would dress up and go. When I say 'meritocracy' it is because all RR's have said that about her, whilst they were comfy established, the young Katie Nicholl was busting to get exclusives. This methodology SEEMS to be part of some if not most of the Mirror points. The Diana example they gave reported by The Telegraph yesterday evening.
The Diana sampling is hard for H to prove, easy for the Mirror according to The Telegraph, in the article they said that everyone reported that D visited H at Eton for 20 minutes, H statement he is angry about this. They aren't invisible, people, someone will spill the beans when D went and left. Who called, that is what IMO H wants to OUT in each and every point. In this D Eton visit, her spokesperson notified the media she is going to visit her son. With that info, a good reporter will go like if it were a cc, press pen, you know the drill.
There is absolutely no doubt whatever that British tabloid newspapers engaged in illegal gathering of information against public figures, whether celebrities or no. The newspaper groups themselves have admitted this and that it has gone on for a very long time. Otherwise these groups would not have paid out in the hundreds of millions over the decades.
I believe the practices engaged in by these journalists were and are indefensible. I would have thought that it incomprehensible that anyone would think they behave correctly at all times.
I believe Harry and his co complainants will win compensation for what these newspapers tried to do. In the end I believe it is worth it to show these tabloid newspaper groups up for the nasty, unethical and abhorrent creatures they are.
As for Katie Nicholl, just because she was paid a large salary doesn?t mean every story she filed was ethical or accurate.
Hacking-linked reporter Katie Nicholl wrote second Hugh Grant story based on private phonecalls ? Byline Investigates (https://bylineinvestigates.com/2020/02/13/mailbomb13-hacking-linked-reporter-katie-nicholl-wrote-second-hugh-grant-story-based-on-private-phone-calls-exclusive/)
?By Graham Johnson
Editor, Byline Investigates
PHONE data relating to actor Hugh Grant appeared in a SECOND story by the same Mail on Sunday journalist who sparked the bitter Plummygate ?hacking? row, Byline Investigates can reveal.
The new article also features sensitive private information about the Four Weddings? star?s former partner Jemima Khan, and her ex-husband ? and serving Prime Minister of Pakistan ? Imran Khan.?
BBC royal expert on Prince Harry press intrusion fails to mention own use of illegal PIs and phone hackers ? Byline Investigates (https://bylineinvestigates.com/2020/01/15/mailbomb-part-8-bbc-royal-expert-on-prince-harry-press-intrusion-fails-to-mention-her-own-use-of-illegal-private-investigators-and-phone-hackers/)
Sources are not illegal in the UK (nor in any country worldwide, except North K, Cuba, Russia, China). Following a person on a public polo event in a court circular or following a person to a nigthclub a Friday night is not illegal. Following a person daily/every day, literally Monday to Sunday non stop is a stalker = illegal. A court of law is the only way to OUT a ''source''.
As I said, hacking is illegal, to prove 100 plus points of being hacked will be hard for H, and in many of the points (according to The Telegraph) will be easy for the Mirror in this lawsuit. That is why I mentioned it will be a Titanic Job to whomever is/are the Mirror employees to gather information for EACH POINT that Harry is exposing in his statement.
This reminds me of 20 years ago, the Harry and Chelsy most of the fans were criticising William and Kate for ''cutting'' their circle, they tested friends with fake info. If it landed in the media, the person was outed quietly. William nor Kate went to the media to say such and such is no longer a friend. Different personalities, behaviours IMO helps a lot or diminishes the person's public persona.
^That was actually what I was wondering. Saying that a journalist followed the royals to events is one thing?standard stuff. But will they be naming other sources that aren?t journalists to prove they didn?t spy via hacking?
And I do agree, sleezy is not the same as illegal. All tabloids are sleezy to an extend, but were they committing illegal acts. We already knew some did, otherwise I don?t think they?d pay.
But there did appear to be a cutoff time period to receive compensation? Or am I mistaken? These cases are all starting to blend together for me. So is that the discrepancy? Is the Mirror saying we did it way back when, but not in the majority of the instances Harry is citing? Sorry for the repeat questions, but I?m trying to understand what all is being claimed other than the obvious.
IMO that is what H want's to do, he want's the court to agree with him and ''out'' the source. As I said it is not illegal to follow a public person of interest to a Nightclub, including foreign travel. For what it's worth, they are not ''invisible'', a Mozambique hotel worker with a low wage (I say low wage because of Katie Nicholl how she did it) can easily call a media outlet and tell them Harry is here. Again a source calling a media is not illegal, it is only illegal if the person source is under a NDA with Harry then. Again, back to William and Kate, after marrying, a RR said they would travel to private island Mustique because it's a private island, how they would get there, by commercial under an alias Mr and Mrs Smith!!!
In the NOTW (News of the world) the itemized Harry hacking number is 13, equate that to meaning NOTW did NOT have nothing anything to prove they did not hack item per item, hence all my comments about hacking and leaked. The key word titanic job of each point.
I have to add that IF the court agrees to 'out' source (s), a fact of circumstance is that it won't be public, IOW the police is called upon to investigate the source (s) from the and PER item vs source per source, the police writes a report of each item/source and delivers to the judge. FOR what it's worth, IMO when Mirror does the titanic job, the Judge will recommend like Sam Markle Florida case, to Harry, to scratch out whatever needs to be out, and keep as I understand to date 3 items.
HistoryGirl2 the deadline (leveson inquiry) was some date (day/month) year 2012, when W accepted an out of court settlement. When, sorry not when, H broke up with W lawyers one year before the 2012 out of court settlement, so apparently with what H did, he was out of the suing deadline. The Royal Family lawyers, who where also the NOTW lawyers, the law firm with different individual lawyers.
November 2012 also was the month/year when David Cameron, Matt Hancock officially published the government report and made media changes i.e. data protection (meghan won) and other specifics. The document is published in the UK Gov site with a key search word ''leveson inquiry''
^So was there a deadline date to submit grievances against the Daily Mirror like there was against NOTW?
By media reports, yes it is too late.
The media reports is based on the interpretation of the final say published in the UK Gov site, Any lawsuit to any media has to be filed 'deadline. Everyone had about 5 years to do it, based on the how it started and when it ended, from the scandal to the Leveson Inquiry final (court, 9 months, Jan to Nov 2012, final outcome Cameron/Hancock). One of the changes was all media sign up with the IPSO as the government ombudsman, meaning the media is willing to be watched like TV with OFCOM UK. Everyone signed except The Guardian, who promised to have their own internal ombudsman, whatever that means. Anyway, this IPSO thing IMO has a loophole that H is using, it's valid, a hearing is a hearing, until a Judge confirms or not to turn it into a lawsuit.
HistoryGirl2 it took that long, years, because the court ordered the police to investigate, once the police sent the written report to the Judge, the hearing of 5 years, recess of waiting for the police report, remember the police force - this is an add on job rather than a regular daily routine of, hence the Jan to Nov 2012 lawsuit.
Consider too that Harry may also want a Leveson 2.0 re-open of Leveson 1.0 to ''add more changes'', I say this because the Judge has to be very careful with what is ''precedecent ruling'' and what is ''not'', the not if the Judge accepts whatever is not, will open floodgates to everyone who wants from a compensation to an apology to loopholes...
Consider also the initial H hearings reported by The Times and The Telegraph when he went to London, his impatience saying that his 'opinion' and W lawyers were stalling rather than the hearings and lawsuits DO take 1 to plus years to solve. His impatience clearly made him break up and switch to another law firm, too late with all the dates/year given the out of court settlement to W (and many others, like 300) These type of hearings ''accusing'', police force is involved if a Judge considers it a GO.
Also consider that any type of lawsuit civil or otherwise, all have 'deadlines' to do this, that and what not.
^Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!
We have reached 15 pages. Time to close this thread and open a new one.
The new thread can be found here.
The Sussexes Legal Actions Part 3 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95453.msg1520714#msg1520714)