Duke and Duchess of Sussex All Legal Actions Part 2

Ayse · 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.

wannable · 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

Other than Diana's case, the above was the most viewed in history.

wannable · April 25, 2023, 05:39:33 PM

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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 06:12:57 PM

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

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.

PrincessOfPeace · April 25, 2023, 06:44:06 PM

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

wannable · April 25, 2023, 07:07:04 PM

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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 08:06:51 PM

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.

wannable · April 25, 2023, 08:45:11 PM

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.

wannable · 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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 08:51:01 PM

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.

wannable · April 25, 2023, 08:56:02 PM

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?

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 08:59:39 PM

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.

wannable · April 25, 2023, 09:04:32 PM

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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 09:15:20 PM

An apology from a man like Rupert Murdoch wouldn?t be high on my list either.

changemhysoul · April 25, 2023, 09:30:27 PM

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.

wannable · April 25, 2023, 09:32:49 PM

^^ 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.

PrincessOfPeace · April 25, 2023, 09:48:54 PM

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

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 10:18:27 PM

^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.

Kristeh-H · 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?

wannable · 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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 11:20:55 PM

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.

wannable · 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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 11:26:16 PM

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.

HistoryGirl2 · April 25, 2023, 11:27:26 PM

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.

wannable · April 26, 2023, 01:17:03 AM

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.