The Iffy-Wiff Club: The Sussexes Legal Action Part 1

[wannable]

He thinks about it, went through all the trouble to be 'free'. The ''at the moment'' phrase from his final court statement could have been unconsciously written as an innocent mistake of Montecito is temporary. ( The U.K. is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the United States)  By the way his statement hasn't been changed by any media.  It is ''implicit'' - HMQEII was the only official monarch and statement about his situation. The statements went worldwide, if the implicitly is not understood with H court statement, I'll leave it to someone else to detail explain Megxit vs the Queen's statements.

This following (my) opinion comes with heavy lawyer.com opinions I have been reading yesterday to today.   His real target is IPP status.  IF he wins public funded police security in the UK, the next step is to have his lawyers fight and expand it worldwide.  International Protected Person basically is immune to the common man - civil law.  He would be above the law. The only way to actively lose a IPP is to do something really bad or break the law and get caught in the 'act' or retired from IPP by a power through courts in the UK.

Political opinion from both Tory and Labour - H has to lose.  Main reason: The Republican anti monarchist will have an advantage if H wins, the campaign to get rid of the Monarchy will intensify due to the freebie HM Justice system gave him paid by the taxpayer.  Russia, China, Iran will be sponsoring the republican sentiment.

[wannable]

Note:  I had placed the Harry Vs ANL (re: paying private security) here because I thought okay ''Daily Fail'', H will win.

It turns out the Judge did not do a ''summary judgment'' as H requested and there will be a court case, which in the judicial link I posted the Judge is recommending also for H to reach a settlement with the Daily Fail, simply the Daily Fail provided sufficient evidence that H lied in reference to having told a Sandringham Summit that he was willing to pay. False. As simple as the ANL or the Judge can discretely ask the 3 senior (1 for each - QEII, Charles, William) staff members and 2 royals Charles and William, plus it's apparent the minutes taken by the 3 men = 5 if it is true, it's a lie.

So after saying that, Admin/Mods, you can if you wish move it to the iffy wiffy. H has been caught, his lawyer committed perjury. It will be stated this coming 10th of Dec or settle it to not go to court.

[wannable]

Harry's see-through public and notorious

He has a problem vocally and by ink stated towards Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine (latest the late Queen Elizabeth II by associating her most senior staff member)

He has a problem by ink stated towards the late Queen Elizabeth II Private Secretary, Sir Edward Young which Harry's code name for him is The Bee
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now King Charles III Private Secretary, Clive Alderton which Harry's code name for him is The Wasp
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now Prince of Wales Private Secretary, Simon Case which Harry's code name for him is The Fly.

Once a court of law USES as a precedent a happening that is public and notorious - it can be used IF a claimant changes his/her stance in a public and notorious happening.

The above is way to obvious that he has a problem with 'authority'. His superiors and by association too.

[Curryong]

Harry's see-through public and notorious

He has a problem vocally and by ink stated towards Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine (latest the late Queen Elizabeth II by associating her most senior staff member)

He has a problem by ink stated towards the late Queen Elizabeth II Private Secretary, Sir Edward Young which Harry's code name for him is The Bee
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now King Charles III Private Secretary, Clive Alderton which Harry's code name for him is The Wasp
He has a problem by ink stated towards the now Prince of Wales Private Secretary, Simon Case which Harry's code name for him is The Fly.

Once a court of law USES as a precedent a happening that is public and notorious - it can be used IF a claimant changes his/her stance in a public and notorious happening.

The above is way to obvious that he has a problem with 'authority'. His superiors and by association too.

If an official blocked me from seeing my own grandmother for a meeting that had been long arranged with lies about her diary being full up for three weeks then I would be angry too. And that was the Fly?s doing. The Queen confirmed it by phone. If it had been me I would have gone to see her anyway and gone into the room where the
Queen was. What would Young have done, manhandled me out of the way, lol!

And I don?t understand the bit of your post that talks about? a precedent that is public and notorious? and ?notorious happening?. That makes no sense in the English language, sorry, and none in English law. As I stated, no judge would be able to privately question anyone, royals, staff, anyone, about any matter unless they are giving evidence in the witness box in a court of law. And that won?t be happening.

[wannable]

So the Queen ordered it after finding out the reality about being blindsided

I cannot help you if you do not know when a situation is public and notorious

[Kristeh-H]

My own personal sense is that if the Queen had really wanted to meet with Harry, then she would have met with Harry.  In spite of what the Sussexes insinuated, QEll seemed to be sharp as a tack and in full control right up til the end.  If any of her staff had blatantly disregarded her wishes, particularly about something like seeing a family member, I doubt that they would have stayed in her favor for long.

It is possible to love someone dearly, and still decide you need a break from dealing with them, especially if that person has a difficult personality.

[wannable]

Currong's point is that Harry and Meghan had a long 'arranged' meeting with the Queen.  I suppose this point is based on Harry's account, which he stated several times. 

Wannable's point is that the alleged long 'arranged' meeting was cancelled by the Queen, as she was ''blindsided'' by Harry and Meghan. The ''Timeline'' is supported by 1. Late November 2019 their Canada long holiday, 2. Arrival at England 6th January 2020 (where they allegedly wanted to go straight to Sandringham for their alleged long arranged meeting) 3. 8th January 2020 they announce they are stepping down via Instagram and at the same date/time their sussexroyal.com announces their plan and take for granted senior working royal ''perks''. 4 and onward - it's available in all languages in the world wide web at least until April 2020 when Canada first announced they won't keep on paying for security, followed by the UK, followed by Trump's comment of nay.

I also take into consideration that the couple have taken aim from big to small people. In the Harry claim of Sir Edward Young, H accuses him of blocking access to his Boss, so IT IS implicit that the Boss doesn't want to see him date/time but as we know at the Sandringham Summit. In hindsight, the decision to not see his grandson was correct, taking into account of that hindsight that both Harry and Meghan would have commercialized the meeting with the Queen.

[wannable]

In a separate comment I can detail 'technical' parts of being 'blindsided' like if one works for Mi5, a simple detail is the website; sussexroyal was created March 2019 (1 year and 2 months before the 8th January launch and stepping down), the Toronto based webmaster is the same company for Meghan's The Tig.

Those technical aspects are the 'footprint' 'the DNA' of movement or gotcha in an investigation. It could have easily been anyone in the webmaster (page) company that whistleblowed the 'content' of the page which was being created. Basically a gold mine of gossip reading 'we are leaving' months before it happened.

[PrincessOfPeace]

BREAKING: Prince Harry has been ordered to pay nearly 50,000 pounds to The Mail on Sunday, after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the paper's defence in a libel case.

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1734233925273166312?s=20

[wannable]

As I said, the public and notorious bit, the quote I posted from the Judiciary official website wasn't the only quote, there is approximately as I counted at least 10 quotes that the Judge mentioned since Sandringham Summit in reference to ''security'' of what Harry had said since, or Harry's team had said since or a past case that was still being recorded but verbally only the parties knew, so someone called and leaked it to...Even Omid Scobie made it in the Judge's numbering and lettering. Could it be more see through?

[sara8150]

Prince Harry ordered to pay Mail on Sunday nearly ?50,000 after losing attempt to strike out part of paper's defence in libel case | UK News | Sky

Prince Harry ordered to pay over ?48,000 to Mail on Sunday over libel cases | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Prince Harry told to pay newspaper's ?50k costs after losing round of libel court battle - Mirror Online

Prince Harry ordered to pay newspaper nearly ?50,000 after losing libel case fight | The Sun

[sara8150]

Prince Harry is ordered to pay publisher of the Mail almost ?50,000 after he lost latest stage of legal battle | Daily Mail Online
In USA is $62,000 in UK pounds is 50,000

[wannable]

There are about five (5) Sussex cases running, or 10...vexatious litigant.  :blush:

This one is one of the two hacking cases Prince Harry (others) vs Mirror Group.  This Friday he will know if he's been successful.


Britain's Prince Harry will find out on Friday (15th December) whether he has won his phone-hacking lawsuit against publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)

You searched for mgn - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary  I haven't had the time to read the several PDF to know which of the litigations will be decided this Friday, but it is 1/3 files.  :lol:

[wannable]

Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers
The Duke of Sussex Prince Harry won 15 out of 33 claims after taking High Court action against the Mirror's publisher for damages after claiming its newspapers were linked to unlawful information gathering


Prince Harry has won in just under half of his claims of unlawful information gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a High Court ruling today.

The Duke of Sussex, 39, sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its titles  the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People  were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.

MGN denied 28 out of the 33 historical articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.

Mr Justice Fancourt gave his ruling this morning in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims. He will be awarded GBP140,600 in damages, just under a third of the GBP 443,000 he'd asked for.

His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by three others, including actor Michael Turner, aka Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Mr Turner on 4 of his 27 claims, awarding him GBP31,650 in damages.

Claims brought by actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were dismissed because they were made too late.

In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: ''I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.

''I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).

"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.''


Mr Justice Fancourt continued: ''I have accordingly awarded the duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.

''I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the press towards the duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.''

An MGN spokesperson said after the ruling: ''We welcome today's judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.''

The high-profile trial ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. Many other witnesses also submitted written testimony to the trial, such as the friends, family and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher.

Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world's media. MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any newspaper articles complained of resulted from phone hacking, while contending that the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.

The Duke has been involved in five cases at the High Court, including similar claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). His civil litigation also features a challenge against the Home Office over the provision of his personal security and the linked libel claim against ANL.

Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers - Mirror Online

[Nightowl]

You need a score card to keep track of all Harry's lawsuits I would think.  He really won't get 140.000 as he has to pay that other lawsuit that he lost, the Mail I think.  Is that enough to pay all the lawyers fees as they are not cheap at all. My fee as a certified paralegal was $150.00 an hour and believe me I did not make any where near $150.00 an hour.   This is chump change to him and a new outfit or two for Meghan........she sure does have expensive taste in clothes as does most royal ladies, some wear repeats of their clothing and some don't. Oh well that is for another day's topic.  Now on to the next lawsuit or two....LOL

[wannable]

I had said 11 years ago they had offered him a settlement of GBP 200K which he rejected, but I have been corrected a few minutes ago that he actually had rejected GBP 250K.

^ That money only covers partial expenses. If what lawyer.com says is their estimate, the money doesn't cover the bulk of expenses of lawyers just alone for this case. The five cases he has, the estimate of H expenses with lawyers is around GBP 2Million.

Also, H just made a 'win statement', he sounds like a person who will be making a career in suing people and the media long term. SO, I think it is safe to say - do not report on the couple?! Or report on the couple with 'opinion' pieces, which apparently is where the media has a loophole (DM won because of this loophole, an opinion piece using H own words about security since Megxit, where he had never had offered to pay, only when he was already in a court room - the Judge had actually told H to not misinform or mislead the public...)

[Curryong]

It was the News Group Newspapers case in which Harry testified he had been offered a settlement (in 2019) not the Mirror Group, against which he won yesterday. The amount wasn't mentioned in the court ruling.

Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 1944 (Ch) (27 July 2023)

I?m so glad to read that Piers Morgan was criticised in Court by the judge and yet later on denied that he knew anything about phone hacking.

It?s fine with many observers when Harry loses a case apparently but when he or Meghan win then all hell breaks loose.
This case was about phone hacking and more specifically in Harry?s case, about a young couple in love (Harry and Chelsy Davy. I would have thought that everybody would be repulsed at this tabloid groups? actions, but no again it?s ?let?s attack Harry?.

You may not like Prince Harry but his win against the Mirror is huge ? and he?s not finished yet | James Hanning | The Guardian

[wannable]

The Judge's words were lukewarm talking about hacking which was 15 years ago. His words weren't strong to make waves that would be 100% favorable to Harry - stating that less than half is favorable, more than half unfavorable, not all is hacking, most is via sources/people that spotted him somewhere. I don't need to say this, the Judge's statement is available in any media outlet. 

Harry judiciary case has to do with papers that hacked at that time, so yes he was offered GBP 250K which he rejected. He mentioned his brother's settlement, the real dragon fighter who opened the hacking case, which he made the NOTW shutdown, which in turn brought the Leveson.

I've provided both the leveson and juidiciary official links in this forum.

[wannable]

Future wording from UK Judges with Sussex cases will be interesting, the latest two cases with the words like spinning, misinforming the public seems that they have the knowledge of the oversharing couple.

The spinning (H statement) to make it look like 'ground breaking - new' no matter what - is non compos mentis, considering that each case has a thick file with claimant, defense and Judge ''every'' single word recorded. 

Two latest spinning i.e.

Harry's statement win vs The Mirror Group, like if this was a new first ever case with his reference of people getting burnt trying to bring down a dragon, he's a dragon slayer.  The spin opposes the fact that as a claimant he mentions his brother W who initiated the suing case, which got people in prison, fined, shutdown, 300 hacked people compensated, which then triggered the famous Leveson Inquiry which changed the culture, practices and ethics of the British press.

Unrelated to legal actions, but also a spin: their 'new' announcement of 'new' projects with their foundation. They are not 'new projects' - they are existing projects by other people founders.  That their media friends accepted to use the worded spin is misinformation in broad daylight.

Which brings a thought this piggybacking using something or someone else has ''done'' to take advantage of it - taking it like yours for a success  - was it in the past of H that his KP team are the real someone's creations of something's - his true character and personality was successfully covered. It's not improbable mixed with the obsession he has with his *elder brother*. I DO think Meghan does have new ideas, the drive - but she also mixes it with a bit of infringement of copyright without crediting that ''bit''.

Anyway, the Sussex will be back in court 2024.

ETA obsession towards W: *The obsession with his elder brother can't be clearer, other than H own Spare words - this latest court case; W win of GBP 1Million - the Judge 11 years ago offered H GB P250k rejected, the Mirror offered to settle without trial GBP 350k rejected by H and with his obsession towards W in mind told the Mirror he wanted GBP 450...to end up with 1/3 of what he wanted. This will further trigger his own nemesis feelings towards W bigger room, more sausages, bigger money wins - H own mind of competition wanting to one up an 'offer' didn't get the offer nor his own one up amount.  H: ''we continue'' - that is a career in suing.

[Curryong]

It seems to me that you have a hard time accepting that the judge awarded Harry any money or that he won his phone hacking case.

And as for words printed in the judgement talk about cherry picking in your posts! The judge accepted that certain Mirror group editors knew what their reporters were doing and either encouraged it or did nothing to stop it. He stated that Harry WAS impacted by the phone hacking and therefore he awarded him over 140,000 pounds because of it.

He expressed sympathy for Harry and others for being subjected to it. Such as

?13. I have also awarded a sum for aggravated damages, to reflect the particular hurt and sense of outrage that the Duke feels because two directors of Trinity Mirror plc, to whom the board had delegated day-to-day responsibility for such matters, knew about the illegal activity that was going at their newspapers and could and should have put a stop to it. Instead of doing so, they turned a blind eye to what was going on, and positively concealed it. Had the illegal conduct been stopped, the misuse of the Duke?s private information would have ended much sooner. ?

That judgement was not packed with 99% criticism of Harry or his legal team at all, as you seem to infer. There was in fact a great deal of criticism in that judgement about the behaviour of the British tabloid newspapers at that time.

If the judge had felt that Harry?s case was without merit and that the Mirror Group?s behaviour towards him, Chelsy and his friends, was beyond reproach then the judgement would have come down on the side of the newspaper group. It did not. Harry won his case. I think people should accept that.

[wannable]

Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers
The Duke of Sussex Prince Harry won 15 out of 33 claims after taking High Court action against the Mirror's publisher for damages after claiming its newspapers were linked to unlawful information gathering


Prince Harry has won in just under half of his claims of unlawful information gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a High Court ruling today.

The Duke of Sussex, 39, sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its titles  the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People  were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.

MGN denied 28 out of the 33 historical articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.

Mr Justice Fancourt gave his ruling this morning in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims. He will be awarded GBP140,600 in damages, just under a third of the GBP 443,000 he'd asked for.

His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by three others, including actor Michael Turner, aka Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Mr Turner on 4 of his 27 claims, awarding him GBP31,650 in damages.

Claims brought by actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were dismissed because they were made too late.

In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: ''I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.

''I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).

"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.''


Mr Justice Fancourt continued: ''I have accordingly awarded the duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.

''I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the press towards the duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.''

An MGN spokesperson said after the ruling: ''We welcome today's judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.''

The high-profile trial ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. Many other witnesses also submitted written testimony to the trial, such as the friends, family and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher.

Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world's media. MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any newspaper articles complained of resulted from phone hacking, while contending that the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.

The Duke has been involved in five cases at the High Court, including similar claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). His civil litigation also features a challenge against the Home Office over the provision of his personal security and the linked libel claim against ANL.

Prince Harry wins in 15 of 33 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers - Mirror Online

[wannable]

As I had posted

He won just not the amount he wanted.

[Curryong]

As I had posted

He won just not the amount he wanted.

Yes. He won. Just as Meghan also won in her cases against the Mail Group previously.

[wannable]

So you accuse me of not accepting but I did as I posted the news.

If you do not like details, preferably skip or disagree. I like details it tells me a lot of things.

[Curryong]

You didn?t post the news of Harry?s win. I did, shortly after it was announced.

Practically every post of yours since that decision came down has been full of negativity in terms of what criticism has come Harry?s way or that of his team from the judges in various cases, on going and now ended. Hardly balanced!

And as far as details go?
It should be noted too that Comid Scobie?s evidence with regard to Piers Morgan?s knowledge of phone hacking was accepted by the judge, who found him a credible witness and said so! Of course Morgan came out with a blast afterwards but what else is new with him. The fact is that on the balance of probabilities (as per a civil case) the judge believed that Morgan knew exactly what was going on with reference to phone hacking done by his reporters while he was editor and commented on it.

Judge accepts evidence that Piers Morgan knew about phone hacking at The Mirror | The Independent

?I found Mr Scobie to be a straightforward and reliable witness, and I accept what he said about Mr Morgan?s involvement in the Minogue/Gooding story

Mr Justice Fancourt
In his ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt said he accepted the evidence of royal biographer Omid Scobie, who told the trial earlier this year that Mr Morgan was told about a use of phone hacking.

The court previously heard that Mr Scobie did work experience at The Daily Mirror in spring 2002, and overheard Mr Morgan being told that information relating to Kylie Minogue and her then-boyfriend James Gooding had come from voicemails.

In his judgment, the judge said an article about them in May 2002 carried the byline of James Scott ?who was one of the showbiz journalists and a known phone hacker?.

The judge added that there was a ?170 invoice from private investigator firm TDI to Mr Scott from earlier that month, for ?extensive inquiries carried out on your behalf?, and the mobile telephone numbers of both people were in Mr Scott?s PalmPilot.

?These documents bear out Mr Scobie?s recollection,? the judge said.?