Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Does anyone else find it ironic that H&M are paying through their ears to set the record straight on this Markle letter drama but now refuse to *ever* set the record straight with the most popular newspapers FOR FREE?
No wonder they are hemorrhaging money...
She also claimed that her father was upset, distraught, etc.
First of all, she hadn't seen or contacted her father for 2 years, so the relationship wasn't in any way warm or close. Secondly, she wouldn't know that he was upset by the media contacting him, because she hadn't been in contact with him.
More lies to come I'm sure.
Meghan´s claim that articles caused row with father `objectionable´ - newspaper
By Press Association13:13, 24 Apr 2020 , updated 13:14, 24 Apr 2020
+1
Allegations by the Duchess of Sussex that articles published by a British newspaper were responsible for “causing” the dispute between her and her estranged father are “objectionable”, the High Court has heard.
Lawyers for Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, said Meghan’s contention that her “vulnerable” father was “harassed and humiliated”, “manipulated” and “exploited” should not form part of her case.
The duchess is suing the publisher over five articles – two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline – which were published in February 2019 and reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to Thomas Markle in August 2018.
At a preliminary hearing on Friday, conducted with the judge sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice and attended remotely by lawyers and reporters, the publisher’s legal team asked for parts of the duchess’s case to be “struck out”.
TOP STORIESSHOWBIZCOVID19SPORT
LIVE TOP STORIES
Meghan Markle had no contact with Thomas for 2 years but claims he’s ‘harassed and exploited’ by press, High Court told
The Sun·4hrs ago
See more versions
Robbie Williams shows off 'impressive bulge' as he strips off in steamy living room snap
Mirror Online·5hrs ago
See more versions
Leigh-Anne Pinnock models tiny bikinis in sizzling TikTok video
Daily Star·51mins ago
See more versions
'I underestimated the scale of public support': Piers Morgan 'apologises' to Ofcom after his fans bombard the TV watchdog to support his grilling of care minister Helen Whately
MailOnline·25mins ago
See more versions
Lynn Faulds
Antony White QC, representing Associated Newspapers, told Mr Justice Warby that some of the allegations made by Meghan are irrelevant and not made with a proper legal ba
He also said that the allegations relating to her father were made without any attempt to contact him, to see if he agrees with them.
In court documents prepared for the hearing, Mr White said the duchess alleges the publisher was “one of the ‘tabloid’ newspapers which had been deliberately seeking to dig or stir up issues between her and her father”.
He said: “This is an allegation of seriously improper deliberate, i.e. intentional, conduct to the effect that the defendant’s motive was to seek to manufacture or stoke a family dispute for the sake of having a good story or stories to publish.”
Mr White argued that, such “complex tests of mental state” of the publisher are “irrelevant to the claim for misuse of private information”, and asked the judge to strike out that allegation.
He added: “In this context it appears that the claimant has seen fit to put these allegations on the record without having spoken to Mr Markle, verifying these allegations with him or obtaining his consent (she admits … that she has had no contact with him since the wedding).
“It is therefore highly unlikely that she has Extract from today A DM article reporting the case
'Mr White also said Associated Newspapers wrote to Meghan’s lawyers on April 6, stating that Friday’s hearing should be avoided if possible because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and offering not to seek costs if the disputed parts of her claim were withdrawn.
However, he said the duchess’s legal team at Schillings law firm replied on April 16, saying she “considered it was unreasonable to accept the offer”
https://www.schillingspartners.com/
They are presumably an expensive law firm with a fierce reputation and have looked like `attack dogs’ in previous cases, although they haven’t always won when acting for a sleaze bags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schillings
To me, though, it looks as if they are presenting a muddled case where the evidence has only a slender relationship to the charge , as if MM were a litigant in person, acting without legal advice. I can easily imagine she is the Client from Hell, disregarding what advice she has been given and telling them to do it her way.
She’s out for blood, as evidenced by the refusal to accept the paper’s offer of not pursuing costs were she to withdraw the allegations under consideration today. Silly girl.
What do the rest of you think? Is this how it strikes you? How accurate is my perception is of what was said in court this afternoon, as reported by Joshua Rozenberg?
Between the stupid press attack and these legal proceedings, there is no coming back from this. I can't imagine she would be welcomed in the UK like she was the first time. As for being a global brand, our priorities have shifted. The concept that they could make billions struck me as a long shot even before the pandemic. They are the classic oversell-and-under deliver employee. All these grandiose announcements that don't seem to have a cohesive mission. Everything they do either falls flat or turns into chaos. I really feel for the Queen and William's family. Don't feel sorry for Charles on this one.They have branded themselves, but who cares? Already there are articles here in the US saying companies are seeing a shift in consumers' buying habits.
Agreed. I thought they were done as soon as the Wuhan disease started circulating (and news of it being suppressed by both CHINA and what is supposedly 'our' media). As soon as that started circulating, her brand of babbling wokeness and whining entitlement became as annoying as a whining mosquito in a quiet room at night.
To me, though, it looks as if they are presenting a muddled case where the evidence has only a slender relationship to the charge , as if MM were a litigant in person, acting without legal advice. I can easily imagine she is the Client from Hell, disregarding what advice she has been given and telling them to do it her way.
She’s out for blood, as evidenced by the refusal to accept the paper’s offer of not pursuing costs were she to withdraw the allegations under consideration today. Silly girl.
When I read that, I really did do a googly-faced "HUNH? WHAT?" Guess they have lots of extra money to throw away. Hope the attorneys were paid in advance. I know the old saying about there's no such thing as bad publicity, but that old saying is wrong, wrong, wrong.
sigh, I think you were right about the ad being something which would appeal to her ... and that she is the client from H*ll is probably on the money.
"I can easily imagine she is the Client from Hell, disregarding what advice she has been given and telling them to do it her way."
She has always disregarded advice and insisted on doing things her way - why should she change her MO now? That's what got her into trouble so often when she was still a working Royal: the courtiers and even her own staff would tell her what to wear and how to act, but she felt she knew better, and tripped up every time. I hope her lawyers got a really big retainer, because she strikes me as the type of client who will refuse to pay if she's not happy with the results.
It's 10:19am in LA. For the one who hits the ground running, she's been up for over 5 hours.
Well, I suppose the waking time in Los Angeles depends upon whether you are an essential employee. They aren't.
It is 10:19 a.m., time for normal folk that aren't working the night shift to be up and about.
No, it is not part of the court case. Dan Wootton says that the source of the stories he got was in fact the Sussexes office (and, by implication, Harry and Meghan). This is what he said:
'What I won’t do is offer myself up to the constant spin, fact-twisting and putdowns of their family members I’ve had to put up with from Harry and Meghan’s long-suffering staff for the past two years.'
Two major stories that Dan was involved in being first: Megxit and the Rose Hanbury affair (the latter not true but the source was the Sussexes). He also claims that the Sussex office was the source of the story about Meghan being banned from wearing jewellery from the royal vaults and there was another one I can't remember. None of them form part of the present court case, as the SUN (for whom Dan Wootton works) is not being sued.
….. Guess they have lots of extra money to throw away. …..
_____________________________________
Then they can afford to pay the UK taxpayers back for the reno on Frogmore, eh? *wink*
Grifter Megsy never pays for anything. Same for the grifter known as Hapless. Why should Megsy accept the above offer when it is the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall who pay her legal bills? Sugar Daddy Charles uses his tenant's money to pay Meg's lawyers either through Harry or directly.
Senior Programme Co-ordinator Clara Loughran
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8252673/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-send-sympathy-message-family-girl-18-died-lockdown.html
As you can seem the address is given as BP. What is going on? Did Harry and Meghan take all the leftover stationary with them and they are using it up? I suppose they cannot order new stationary as they do not have an office, staff (?), an official name?
And why is she referring herself as HRH The Duchess of Sussex for the court case?
This is a lose-lose for the HAMS.
Petulant Harry reminds me a lot of his uncle, Charles Spencer ranting at her funeral after refusing to let her live at althorp
When did this happen? Why would they want to settle? It makes MoS look wrong and they lose all the clicks and reads they’ll get if she’s forced into the stand. Win or lose case-wise, it’s a win for MoS.
I thought it was the other way around, but could be wrong. I thought HAMS offered to withdraw certain parts of the case, but MoS refused. If this is true, it means MoS thinks they can win on those parts of the case.
Scobie, however you spell his name, posted some BS that everyone is saying is a pathetic spin/outright lie.
>>> She’s out for blood, as evidenced by the refusal to accept the paper’s offer of not pursuing costs were she to withdraw the allegations under consideration today. <<<<
When did this happen? Why would they want to settle? It makes MoS look wrong and they lose all the clicks and reads they’ll get if she’s forced into the stand. Win or lose case-wise, it’s a win for MoS.
_______________________________________
The only *settling* MoS would be doing under the circumstances is not pursuing costs -- while Markle has to withdraw the charges. An admission of defeat for her, which is anathema! Personally, I think MoS was making themselves look generous, and Markle even more tantrum-throwing, and I think it worked :)
I agree with you -- even if they lose on some technicality (which I doubt), they still win.
@Lindy...
I thought it was the other way around, but could be wrong. I thought HAMS offered to withdraw certain parts of the case, but MoS refused. If this is true, it means MoS thinks they can win on those parts of the case.
_________________________________
The negotiations have been going back and forth, and I think we're just getting the actual meat of them now -- MoS probably refused Markle because was probably asking for zillions. MoS made the counter offer of not pursuing costs, and it's Markle's turn to refuse. (My take)
But, I may be totally misunderstanding this!
I thought it was the other way around, but could be wrong. I thought HAMS offered to withdraw certain parts of the case, but MoS refused. If this is true, it means MoS thinks they can win on those parts of the case.
This makes more sense to me. I don’t think they would offer her a crumb and any settling would make them look bad.
William would “test” friends by telling them lies over the phone, and waiting to see if his “lies” would end up in the media. Many of the lies did, and William cut these old friends from his life. Then William found that his cell phone was being tapped, and his friends had not betrayed him. There were some mea culpas, but the fact that William, would not let these lifelong friends defend themselves in the beginning made for hard feelings, and loss of trust. William never forgot this lesson. It made him more withdrawn, and without Kate, he would probably be more like his useless brother today.
William would never, will never, forgive or forget if the story/lies about him and his close friend, Rose, was begun by Harry or Meghan. Who would forgive such creeps? I think if William found out that his brother and sister-in-law did start the lies, there is no return for the HAMS. This lawsuit by the HAMS is also a threat to the Cambridge privacy, and especially if it affects their children. All hell will break loose, privately, and William will stew, waiting to take away all titles from his brother, in time. This sounds like a soap opera, or a minor Greek tragedy, I know, but this lawsuit s like a scratch that now is gangrenous, for the world to watch.
To me, though, it looks as if they are presenting a muddled case where the evidence has only a slender relationship to the charge , as if MM were a litigant in person, acting without legal advice. I can easily imagine she is the Client from Hell, disregarding what advice she has been given and telling them to do it her way.
Tweet from Rozenberg:(Sherborne is lawyer for Megs)
"Sherborne in conclusion: not only are the bad faith allegations relevant, they are critical to the way the claimant wants to run her case. There is no public interest in misinforming and misleading the public."
Note: critical to the way claimant wants to run her case.
Client from Hell, indeed.
Also: Poor William's friends, in your first paragraph! In their shoes, I would defend myself only so far, and then be like, eff this, who needs this guy?
Just me.
I'm still wearing mine, but I can't say that they aren't screaming in agony. Sadly, it has been raining torrentially here with lots of lightning, high winds, and the occasional tornado) for awhile so my outside activities have been limited to keeping livestock fed and from drowning. You would think that wading through pastures in rubber boots against water resistance while carrying a couple 5-gallon buckets with feed would be sufficient exercise to keep the poochy tummy at bay, but nooooo.
Congrats on the jeans! You are a brave soul for taking that challenge. I am afraid to try :(
"The judge asks Sherborne if these additional articles are the basis of a claim and therefore need to be pleaded specifically, as in a libel claim. “No”. But you are seeking aggravated damages for them? “Yes, because of the distress they caused.”"
Is she trying to backdoor libel/defamation? What game is this? No libel claim but aggravated damages because they hurt her feelings?!
From Wikipedia (apologies, the extent of my legal prowess)
"A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. ... English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world."
This is going to get interesting. And very, very expensive.
@Barbara from Montreal
Harry can come back any time as a prodigal son. He will be accepted back by the British public. But this same public is fully onto Megs. Objectively, the Malibu two cannot return to Great Britain...Only a Harry stripped of Maleficent Megs can.
Slightly OT on this new thread, but I agree. I suspect the Queen already has an understanding with Harry that he is welcome back as a full-fledged BRF member and MM can accompany him home, but that they won't fix her visa problem ("the law is the law") and that she won't be given any official duties, which means she'll basically only be a visitor to the U.K. for the remainder of whatever relationship they keep. (All of this is assuming Harry is still alive.)
The part I don't think Harry appreciates is how much damage he has done to his relationships with his father, brother, SIL, and possibly cousins. (This court case is damaging their public image similarly.) I don't think he realizes yet that he isn't going to be able to repair them; he, at her instigation, has hurt and angered them too much.
As another poster said, much farther back on this blog, you never really get over the damage that a sociopath does to your life. That's also been my experience.
I'm not a lawyer, have never played one on tv, & I know nothing about British law, but this is what I think happened today. (I defer to anyone actually knowledgeable of UK law.)
This is just a preliminary hearing, not the main event, which would be the actual trial on the underlying grievance Megs is claiming, violation of her copyright, privacy, yadda, yadda. The lawyers for the MOS are attempting to do a little legal housekeeping by having some of Megs' more irrelevant claims tossed before the trial begins. The MOS lawyers are so sure that these issues will be thrown out, they offered to let the Harkles drop the hearing, & even sweetened the deal by telling the Harkles that they would not charge them for the costs of this particular negotiation, if & when the Harkles lose. Either the MOS lawyers are very confident they'll win on this matter, or they're foolishly cocky. I'll let you decide. All of the lawyers, & the judge seem to know each other quite well, as is often the case in legal proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic. These are all preliminaries, not the trial itself.
If a cartoon balloon showing the thoughts of the Schillings lawyers when they met the Harkles could be shown, I think it would say, "Ka-ching!" They must know they'll get paid, either by Charles or the MOS. Having a crazy client is money in the bank. The more foolish things the client asks them to do, the longer the proceedings drag on, racking up those legal fees.
@seabee- I think Meghan does coke with Harry. Just a feeling I have. I think they are able to really wind eachother up when they are 'up'. So the scenario of her writing up this stuff under the influence makes sense. I don't go for weird theories too often but certain things feel correct to me and this is one of those things. Harry is a known casual drug user and Meghan could easily be so as well. (Besides marijuana I mean)
I cannot possible see a single way Meghan can win this case?! Basically it would take these 5 friends lying for her. I believe that Serena Williams is one of the friends. It explains the recent comment she made while she was being questioned about Meghan. I'm sure none of the "5 Friends" will appreciate having to testify in court. Well maybe that wet rag Daniel would do it. I suspect he'd lick Meghan's feet if she asked him to
Someone clarify for me, Dan Wootton said HAMS office was the source for the Rose Hanbury story?
No, not as far as I know. But Dan Wootton of the Sun, who broke the story, seems to be hinting it came from the Sussexes' offices.
I personally don't see Harry being involved in this lie, but it's right up MM's alley, IMO. And TCD has at least one other "tea-sharing" where MM lied about something to the press (i.e., her mother's being invited to Sandringham for Christmas), and PH believed it to be true and started making arrangements for it. Ultimately, according to TCD's source, PH ended up having to confront MM over the lie.
This is from a month ago but I had not seen it. Comments are telling.
Which is it?
I wonder if the Red Duchess could be declared a `vexatious litigant' who exasperates the Court to such an extent that her case is dismissed? That'd be satisfying, as would her being awarded nominal, aka derisory, damages for breach of copyright. About 3p, or less, would be right. ideally, she'd have to pay costs as well.
I'm not an attorney either but from a layperson's perspective I agree with your take.
From just following the info in the Mirror, it was my take that the MoS was not saying at the beginning of April "drop the whole thing and we won't ask for expenses." While such an offer may have been made at some point, if it was it would have been made months ago. That ship had sailed long before this month and both sides knew it.
Instead, I thought it was an offer not to ask for expenses for the parts that were to be disputed today if those parts were dropped (the parts that sound like backdoor defamation charges.)
I don't know about how it works in the UK, but in this sort of proceeding in the US, both sides would have known exactly what was to be disputed well before today's event. Of course, the MoS disputes all the charges, but knew that wasn't the issue before the Court today.
I do think M's attorney referring to "the way she wants to run her case" suggests she may not be taking legal advice (unless that's common language in UK cases.) While her side may prevail, I don't think the overall approach is the one the attorney would have recommended if he'd had "his druthers." It's crazy IMO to try to claim her "warm" relationship with her elderly father, Thomas, was ruined by DM/MoS yet she hasn't spoken to him since getting married, having a child, leaving royal duties, moving to Canada, and then moving back to the US. No newspaper is that powerful.
Reminds me of that brilliant Harry and Meghan wedding episode of the UK comedy series "The Windsors", when Harry escapes Meghan and the spa weekend and ends up in jail in a Nazi uniform with a hooker he apparently made a dame the night before. Meghan arrives and crossly tells him she's spoken to the police and he's free to leave. Impressed, Harry asks her if she used her legal expertise from Suits. "No" she says sulkily. "I showed them my bra."
@LuckyDog- haha that probably wasn't very nice of me ;)
I'm sitting here aghast at the thought of Harry being involved in the Rose Rumors. I just don't believe it. Meghan, definitely yes. In fact, I can see Meghan arranging for the rumor to be released around Harry and then she could just beg innocence. Harry always believes her.
Remember when William made those visits to the MI5 offices? I wondered about that at the time. I wonder if he was trying to figure something out...to find out something. Anyways. Mind boggling.
This case will be so interesting. I can ONLY imagine Meghan on the phone belting out her version of legal-eeze to her poor Attorney! You married her Harry!
That was the implication. He broke the Rose story, as well as Megxit, the story about Megys not being allowed to borrow jewellery from the Queen and some other big story that I forget. He implies that the Sussex office was the source of those stories and that the Sussexes did try to put out negative stuff about the Cambridges:
What I won’t do is offer myself up to the constant spin, fact-twisting and putdowns of their family members I’ve had to put up with from Harry and Meghan’s long-suffering staff for the past two years.
If it wasn't the Rose story, it was something major that they all found out about Harry and Meghan that showed a high level of duplicity and betrayal from the duo. It was not the 'with heavy heart let's sit down and try to sort this out' and then go our separate ways attitude that everyone had for the Sandringham meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnOPVv0HKE8
This is all good, much is obvious, but at 7 minutes in the psychologist gets to the meat of Harry's problem with Meghan.
The Sussexes were the source for the article Don wrote about (1) above.
This stuff is all just a warm up. It's like a poker game that will morph into a boxing match if someone doesn't blink.
Okay, back to English common law:
So, for those who aren't familiar and want to follow more closely:
A cause of action is the set of facts that allow a party to bring suit. But it's not just any random set of facts. The facts must be legally significant ones related to the elements.
Elements of a cause of action are the points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case, and all must be proven to meet the burden of proof required. In a civil case, that is usually by a preponderance of the evidence (although clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, which is greater than a preponderance, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal) is required for some causes of action). So, for example, most commonly known one is negligence, and to prove negligence, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach, cause, and harm. Three out of four won't cut it. Ask Mrs. Palsgraf :)
Rache's causes of action - she has three:
1. The misuse of private information:
A new common law tort recognized in the Naomi Campbell case. That case was cited at the hearing today.
Rache must first prove that she had a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the information in question".
Looks like the House of Lords said in the Campbell ruling that in some instances info is obviously private (health or sexual relationships), but otherwise, the court applies the reasonable person standard. Obvs, Rache's issues are not related to health or sex, so reasonable person will apply. In order to evaluate that, case law research is required to see how the courts have applied it since. I'm sure there will be interesting arguments on both sides.
If Rache establishes her reasonable expectation of privacy, then the court applies a balancing exercise (commonly used, again more research required for Rache's case, but the Campbell case is where we'll look for that guidance; there seems to be a four-step evaluation) and will balance the interests of Rache v MoS/Public.
Then there are two more causes of action:
2. Infringement of copyright
This is from Thomas Reuters Westlaw.
To establish infringement, Rache needs to prove the following:
An infringing act took place in the UK.
The alleged infringing work is derived from the copyright work.
The alleged infringing work is a substantial reproduction of the copyright work.
I found a number of cases cited, so I'll research those which I have access to thru the westlaw subscription.
3. Breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 Will research the elements related to this one later.
@Elle and @SwampWoman
We will all need rehab and an extended stay at the Fat Farm when this is over!
if the can-do-no-wrong Queeny thinks she can simply welcome Just Harry back and force him down the people's throats she is up for a surprise.
First he calls Brits "unconscious" racists, then he betrays Royal Marines for Disney, then he is exposed as mentally deficient brat in Greta prank and finally he says coronavirus that destroys world economy and killed hundreds of thousands of people is not that bad.
Good luck to the Queen
I'm not disputing there are important principles at stake, the main one for me being that there is no right that should obstruct appropriate scrutiny of a royal in her position, but so much MESS is being dragged in as well. Hopefully she - not us! - will be landed with the bill at the end of the day. However, I expect it will be Prince Charles picking up the tab yet again. I'm actually beginning to think he may need to make some economies in his George IV lifestyle. Maybe then he'll wake up and deal with her.
@Lizzie: I fully agree with your above statement and would like to add one more item to your list:
If Meghan truly had a warm relationship with Thomas, then why did she never even bother to introduce Thomas to Harry? Meghan made sure Doria met Harry on several occasions during the courtship. I do not accept a “busy schedules” excuse. Busy schedules didn’t prevent Doria from meeting Harry and she was allegedly working at her own job during all that period when Thomas was retired and sitting around in Mexico.
Also keep in mind that Thomas knew about but at Meghan’s request never made a peep about Meghan and Harry during the entire courtship and engagement right up until he had the photos taken by Meghan’s go-to pap agency. I think Meghan never wanted Thomas to be a part of the wedding because he wasn’t “brand Meghan” as she called it. She set him up by having the pap agency contact him and talk him into thinking the photos were a good idea. Meanwhile, the wedding invitation was hand-delivered by a staffer from the British consulate in Los Angeles to Doria. Thomas reportedly got no such thing.
Does anybody think that William told Harry and Meghan to get out of the country sooner rather than later? It seems the HAMS were planning to leave before they married. I remember nasty Harry when he was training with American troops in California, and his terrible reputation. Plus his Nazi uniform he wore as an adult was the vomit moment for many. The craziness of him accusing the British media of racism, after all his racist doings, remarks, and actions is unbelievable to me. Nobody in the press called him out for his racism and anti-Semitism, too. He always got away with being an idiot, no matter what damage he caused.
The Royal family thought they had this scorpion under control when they trusted him, but a scorpion cannot help but destroy whatever he can get away with. Marrying M was a stupid move on H’s part, as she was not the correct and popular woman who could smooth (grease) his way from being Sixth String Popular Rich Prince into Henry Windsor-Mountbatten, charming audiences, goofing around with kids, and making speeches about causes close to his heart. Instead he married a Nightmare, who made it her mission to destroy his reputation, as it made and makes her feel powerful and in charge of a popular prince. I bet it was her mission to make H be as miserable as she is 24/7. M cannot change her nasty personality, but she can take Britain’ bad boy as unpopular as she is, with malice aforethought.
'I'm sitting here aghast at the thought of Harry being involved in the Rose Rumors. I just don't believe it. Meghan, definitely yes. In fact, I can see Meghan arranging for the rumor to be released around Harry and then she could just beg innocence. Harry always believes her.
Remember when William made those visits to the MI5 offices? I wondered about that at the time. I wonder if he was trying to figure something out...to find out something. Anyways. Mind boggling.'
I agree. I knew at the time he was getting to the bottom of it. He put it in the media to let "whoever" leaked it know he was going to find the source. If the future King of England asked I'm sure the M15 jumped to help.
This was after he scarfed her and I knew she would retaliate for that. You don't mess around with malignant narcs. She didn't like him showing her "her place" and embarrassing her on a world stage, especially since the narc's goal is to destroy.
Were all of the rules done on a handshake, good-faith basis, or would the HMTQ have had legal papers drawn up and have The Harkles sign a legal agreement? Is HMTQ considered the "law of the land" in a situation such as this, so no legal agreement is required, but must be legally obeyed?
I ask because I'm wondering if the BRF can't legally cut off the promised one-year funding because a legal agreement has been put in place? If it was a handshake agreement with HMTQ, would that be enforceable in terms of cutting their funding early? The Harkles have repeatedly gone against the rules that had been put in place.
On another note, although this was just a preliminary hearing, I think COVID put yet another block on MM's plans. Can't you just see her all dressed up in one of her horrible costumes, a la the green cape dress and sky high heels, to appear in court today? She wouldn't pass up the opportunity to have all cameras on her as she sashays into the courthouse with that frighteningly sly grin. This court case is just for PR purposes anyway, and I think she looked at it as a great opportunity to go back to London to show the world that she is GB's biggest and most put-upon star. I think she had great plans to turn this into a Hollywood production, and this may happen when the trial begins.
I don't think there were five friends. They were all MM. Now, how are she and People going to get out of this mess, because I think she planned on settling out of court with a huge settlement in her favor. Now, she's looking at paying enormous bills for the MoS legal team. There is no way that Charles is going to pay for that, as the the last thing the BRF would want is a public court case involving any member of the BRF, possibly opening them (and their finances) to public scrutiny. Just IMO.
Ditto, ditto, and check out the elements I laid out and how this will proceed based on the Campbell case. I've only gotten thru the first cause of action, the misuse of private information, because that's where the fun will be. I had to research UK law, but I see a spectacle de merde for all to enjoy.
If Meghan is suing MoS for publishing, in part or whole, a letter that she claims belongs to her under copyright law, and her status as a public figure doesn't negate that right... then does that not mean Harry should sue Daily Mail for publishing his letter?
Harry has been the subject of negative press from DM, it was a private letter, and he didn't give permission for it to be published.
Maybe the DM is releasing this to test the Malibu Dumbartons? If they're truly upset about the "copywright" issue, then they should be suing over this letter as well.
But if they're suing MoS because Meg's reputation took a hit, that's a different lawsuit all together (and they would have to prove that MoS lied about Meg's character and actions... LOL)
Going to read the blog and comments now
@Ellenesia, thank you for doing the legal research, here. I, for one, am very interested in this case. It's fascinating to me how she can expect to win this case when SHE begat this mess in the first place, expecting Thomas to publicize her letter in the first place, and when he didn't do what she expected, the 5 "friends" went to People and provided word-for-word quotes from both the letter she wrote to TM and the letter she received from him. It was only after that instigating move on MM's part, that TM decided to defend himself. I am endlessly fascinated with how her mind works.
Slightly OT, and I'm not sure who brought up The Windsors, but I just watched season 3 on Netflix last night and really hope they release new content, soon. It's hilarious. Pippa arranging for MM to be sent to China to be re-programmed was funny as all get out.
As far as MM goes, I know I've read somewhere that while she was in college, she had pics of William on her walls and she was obsessed with marrying him. When she said she didn't know anything about the BRF I KNEW she was lying, because literally ANYONE who has stood in line at the supermarket has seen some kind story of the BRF, at some point in their life. I mean, I started reading about them in the early 70s, when I was under 10 years old. I've been fascinated with them ever since. I know that just because I'm fascinated with them, doesn't mean other people are, but for someone in the US to know absolutely NOTHING about the BRF? Sorry, not buying it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think Harry has been enraged at the BRF since Diana's death, and he is using MM to get his revenge. And the longer the BRF give into him, the worse they look, on all sides.
Thanks for letting me get some stuff off my chest, everybody, and stay safe.
Yesterday I was listening to one called Think Like A Spy. An ex Royal Marine, CIA and FBI people give examples of what happened when they were operating and how this is useful in real life for normal people. Sections on confidence, negotiation, self discipline etc.
Listening to the FBI lady talk about Deception and I did a double take. Her speciality was turning foreign agents in the US. At the beginning she is talking about how to spot liars. The verbal cues are 1) they talk more than listen in an attempt to sound legitimate and win people over and 2) they use complex sentences to hide the truth.
Towards the end of the 30 minute session she says it is more important in real life to be able to recognise liars than need to be able to lie like a spy has to. Psychologists say our brain is wired for war. If we disagree with someone their point of view has been attacked and they feel threatened so they yell and scream. Her eg of this was to look at politics or family reunions over the holidays.
These points remind anyone else of anyone in particular or is it just me.
Judge to rule at a later point
The Gap has (had) an amazing sale on the Internet. I had to buy more jeans to fit into my corona body. I am jealous of people who can still wear their pre-quarantine clothes. I walk miles per day with my dog, but I eat away the calories I have burned.
Indeed, I'm eating tons of "comfort" food which, in the south, means high calorie. (Krispy Kreme donuts are open albeit in the drive thru only.)
Considering that I'm of an age to have an Elevated Risk of Death (tm) which REALLY pisses me off because I'm not old enough to draw a pension check, at least I'll have had chocolate cake before being placed on a ventilator. (I'll probably develop type 2 diabetes as well.)
@Musty Syphone
@Elle and @SwampWoman
We will all need rehab and an extended stay at the Fat Farm when this is over!Fat Farm
I prefer to think of it as "charmingly chubby farm" :)
YankeeDoodle
The Gap has (had) an amazing sale on the Internet. I had to buy more jeans to fit into my corona body. I am jealous of people who can still wear their pre-quarantine clothes. I walk miles per day with my dog, but I eat away the calories I have burned.
I can't believe I can get these on. It must be the lycra. Of course, knowing that didn't stop me from eating the tarte de brie, but I needed the energy for research (off to check on gap sale now)).
Do you expect People mag to claim journalistic protection of sources? From your account, it seems to me as a non-lawyer that the question of "the absence of consent and whether it was known or could be inferred" is critical since the People article did reference M's letter first (and referenced Thomas's letter which further implies consent re: her own letter IMO.)
I'm not convinced there weren't friends involved. Don't know that there were 5 of them and I do think M was definitely involved. Will People have to reveal the friends' identities? Or will NY's shield law protect them since People mag's corporate office is in NY?
--------
@Suzy1972 wrote:
"But if they're suing MoS because Meg's reputation took a hit, that's a different lawsuit all together (and they would have to prove that MoS lied about Meg's character and actions... LOL)"
I agree it should be a different lawsuit. But I'm pretty sure (if I've understood some previous posts correctly) unlike in the US the plantiff doesn't have the burden of proof in a defamation suit in the UK. Rather it's up to the defendant to prove what was said was the truth. If that's true, I do kind of wonder why M didn't also bring defamation charges vs trying to shoehorn that into this case. Is the shoehorning partly an attempt to gloss over there were no financial losses to M if there was a copyright violation? (Aren't financial losses largely what many copyright violation cases are about?)
I think she has a case as far as infringement of copyright is concerned. Her father could have defended himself (when she let or instructed her friends to leak contents of the letter) without publishing large excerpts from the letter (about a fifth, which is beyond fair use guidelines). But, I doubt that she can claim much in damages as it is the pot calling the kettle black (her father was defending himself against the very attack she is claiming she is a victim of) and what damages were there to her? Are damages awarded according to the sensitivity of the claimant (subjectively) or is this assessed objectively? Remember, at the time she was fully funded by being a working member of the BRF and that article made no difference to her status or financial wealth at all. Surely she cannot claim for hurt feelings and/or damages to future earnings that at the time were not an issue at all?
But, as I said before, sometimes damages in terms of a financial award are given as a form of punishment and deterrence. I suppose this is what Meghan is counting on as she wants the money.
Her and Harry claim that any financial payout they get will be donated. Who thinks that will still happen?
Another question. In the United States, most if not all states have a “grandparent” law, which is a law to protect the right of grandparents to see or visit their grandchildren. In many bitter divorces, the custodian parent tries to punish the ex-spouse by denying his or her parents the right to see their grandchildren. Since the HAMS are no longer diplomatically protected royals, in fact they are not royals at all in the one-year limbo period, can TM sue to see Archie? And
I can't imagine the Queen's agreement with the Sussexes was done on a handshake! Not just because it involves the sovereign, but because BP was the one who initially (allegedly) told PH to put something in writing to his father first, the courtiers were the ones saying the issues were complicated, and because part of the agreement involves some statutory law issues (e.g., their use of the word "royal" apparently) where the Queen's hands would have been tied, so to speak. But I can see Harry relying on a handshake from Dad for the one-year funding, which I suspect MM is exploiting as she has in the past.
My daughter who lives in Charlottesville, Virginia introduced me to Duck Donuts. There is now one of these donut stores near me. I am not a donut person, but you have not lived until you have your own warm, just made for you toppings and fillings donut. I have dreams about them every now and then. I am lucky to be tall, and was thin/average weight 6 weeks ago. Now, forget about weight. Forget about hair dyes - I spray my roots with temporary dye, when I have the energy. Masks mean no make-up, six feet distances are showers every three days instead of every day (no more dry skin!) and I focus almost too much attention on two fools I will hopefully never meet.
I hope you're right, Este. The more I try to make sense of Elle's legal explanations, the more I think the legal arguments and the case itself may go over the heads of the proverbial woman in the street. The suit itself will assuredly sink MM's future Hollywood career, but I'm not sure how detrimental it will be to her personal reputation. IMO the latter has probably already sunk, and without those five friends taking the witness stand, the MOS attorney may not be able to really show her for the liar she is in court.
That's just how it looks to me today.
Thanks! (I did know the points weren't yours; by "account" I meant your "post" on the blog.)
While it is a UK case, I didn't know if UK law could force a US publication to give up a legal protection it has "where it lives." Of course, M also knows who the friends are and I wouldn't think there would be a legal basis for her to refuse to name them. I think she's essentially already named one--- the friend of then-editor Jess Cagle. What's she going to say about the other 4? That she showed her letter and Thomas's letter to so many people she's not sure who the 4 are?
@Henrietta
if the can-do-no-wrong Queeny thinks she can simply welcome Just Harry back and force him down the people's throats she is up for a surprise.
First he calls Brits "unconscious" racists, then...
Oh, I hear you, Fairy. You Brits have a lot to be angry with Harry about and how you work it out is 100 per cent your call.
@Nutty - Did you receive an email from me yesterday? I sent it last night. I'm US Central Standard Time (Daylight Savings) so that is probably 7-8 hours earlier than where you are. I sent the email to your gmail address for this blog.
Also: I think Meghan was baiting her father when she sent that letter to him, intending to promote the self-promoted narrative of Meghan being the victim of her father, which started with the pap photos just days before the wedding from the pap photo agency she always called and still calls to have photos taken of herself to be released to the media.
I think she figured she could manipulate Thomas. He would receive the letter and run right to the media and whine about it. But he didn’t. She sent the letter in August 2018 and he sat on it.
That is a loss of control. Being the narcissist that she is, she was attempting to manipulate and control Thomas with that letter. Narcissists also hate to be ignored. They hate it when they lose control over other people.
She became impatient and didn’t want the effort of writing the letter to go to waste. Meghan also wanted to regain control, so she came up with Plan B, which was to go public through People magazine to inflict punishment on her 75 year-old father.
Synchronizing five women who all lead busy lives to give interviews to People could be difficult, and they might hesitate to join Meghan in a magazine smear job on her elderly father. Even if they were promised anonymity, they would still be risking that they’d be revealed to the public, which might happen in this court case.
Even if Tom Markle was truly a nasty piece of work, I wouldn’t join such an effort, and I bet the people reading this blog wouldn’t want to participate in a public takedown of an old man.
Most sane people would tell Meghan it was time to let go of her bad feelings toward Thomas and move on with her life.
But narcissists keep a tight hold on grudges, even if it’s a situation largely their own fault. They rarely admit fault.
If Meghan couldn’t recruit five friends to gang up on her father, I do not think it is beyond Meghan to have contacted People through an intermediary and offered the story and “friends” to vouch for her angelic personality in tasty interviews.
Just as with the Harry Markle post about Meghan impersonating her own public relations rep, she could have easily created the five fictitious friends and did the interviews either via email or online chats or via phone and disguised her voice.
I thought it was reported a couple of months back
that Megs offered to drop the case but MOS declined?
@Jocelyns Bellinis
Hell yes, Megs must have her day in court, all glammed up
wearing a black netted “titfer” to shield her tearful eyes.
I’m sure she’ll also pull a “medical” stunt as part of the show?
Picture this.. Megs prostrate on her bed a la “Cathy”
pitifully clawing at “Heathcliff”
“Withering Shiites”
“I don't think there were five friends. They were all MM. “
That is a very interesting idea. And a credible one to boot, because of the recent reports that M posed online as her own PR rep in the past.
I have always worked at home, but all this isolation has made my relationship with food and cooking much more ardent. Sigh.
I think that T Markle has a condo in L.A. He may live in Mexico, but he is a United States citizen, and such, has the dubious pleasure of paying not only taxes on income made in America, but pay American taxes on income earned anywhere else in the world. I think the U.S. is the only country to double tax its citizens working abroad. Plus California has the highest income taxes iof any state in the country, and then add local and county and state taxes, property taxes, sakes taxes, etc. To begin.
@Ellenesia - Unless Thomas Markle is a criminal behind bars, he has rights to see what we think is his grandson, Archie. The HAMS live in the United States. Just call me nobody - does he even have a visa to live in our country, or did he sneak over in his private jet as an illegal alien hours before our borders closed with Canada? He filed part of this lawsuit in South Africa, within hours of the laws being changed not in his and his wife’s favor. What a winner. He and Meghan are alway sneaking around, like rats. I apologize to rats.
oh, never mind, no...
I have worked from home a lot, too, and I feel the need to make sure that no food in my fridge, pantry, and/or freezer "goes bad". Pre-rona, I could limit the damage by not buying more than I could (and would) (un)reasonably eat, but since the rona and this need to stock up and the bean order and the pasta order and the tarte obsession and the emergency cake and the rona-fighting cocoa toddies (I made up that last one just to rationalize them), it's not been pretty. SO, I feel you. I was just surprised the jeans went on at all. I expected to need two legs for one kinda thing.
The day before this article was published Serena Williams posted on Insta I think a photo of her and the phrase sips tea. The very next day the article was published. She was no doubt privvy to it at least and was likely one of the friends. But something strange has happened over the last couple of months. At the US tennis match which meghan attended people seems uncomfortable with her being there, Serena's mum for one seemed distant with her and if I recall correctly she had been asked not to go so she wasn't a distraction, or be a bad omen, something along those lines.
Since they notified the world press of the lawsuit in Africa many of her associates have gone quiet. About 8 weeks ago Alex Onassion Serenas husband posted some very cryptic tweets about people being charlatans and not knowing the real them, they will fall in the eyes of others kind of stuff.
There was no doubt in many peoples minds that these tweets were alluding to Meghan as he used the word charlatan and some of her key phrases from her word salad diatribes. A lot of peoples eyebrows raised. I highly recommend checking them out.
Now in the last few days there was the very awkward exchange between Serena, Venus and naomi campbell via video link where Naomi asked something about Meghan. Serena replied, "don't know her, never heard of her" and Venus's face was a picture. She used the exact same phrase as she used when a tennis player she doesn't get on with retired from the game and all the other tennix players were posting well wishes. It was seen at the time as catty and unpleasant. Some folk took this exchange the other day as she was giving Meghan her privacy but I have my doubts now. Then the next day I saw a video she had released on Tik Tok which was bizarre but filled with hidden meaning without a doubt. She was in her kitchen wearing a Disney style snow white dress and she was holding a tray of something ready for the oven. She put on this over the top singy song voice and then turned around to put the food in the oven and the back of her dress didn't fit so it was open which she made a point of mentioning. People thought she was mocking meghan as at the Disney lion King premier her black dress that she was squeezes into had a gap that almost looked like it did not fit her.
Big question is if Serena isn't trying to Stoke rumours or a falling out she is going about it very strange as it seems to be clear something has happened to change the dynamic of their friendship. If so why? Is it because of the cringe photos at the tennis match where meghan was seated talking to Alex and she looked like she was giving him an eyeful with her legs open at an odd angle, or my theory, is it because Serena is now pissed that she is undoubtedly going to be dragged into this shit show now that meghan has denied any knowledge of her friends going to the magazine. If my friend had essentially thrown me under the bus on the worlds stage to save their own skin I would be pretty hacked off too...
Sorry about the ramble but i sense something is really afoot with all this.
Unfortunately for M, this trial is not being televised, due to the corona virus, but one can listen to the verbal arguments. I guess Megs will save on mascara that would be dripping down her face, along with lipstick strong enough to withstand her biting and licking. And her hair, and the pound of blush and foundation, plus the ill-fitting French designer clothes with the tight bras and spanx.
Thank you for your answers. As an American, this whole trial is a load of junk. Most judges would have thrown this frivolous lawsuit out. I think that UK judges would too, if not for the now irrelevant “Prince” in front of H.
Thanks for your legal breakdown. I’m clueless re law & appreciate
your input. Madam Merde & her sidekick turd may live to regret
their decisions. Win or lose MOS are laughing, same can’t be said for those two...
@YankeeDoodle
If all else fails Megs can borrow Samanthas wheelchair & represent herself
“Blindside”
I think you're on to something here. Meghan's denying using her friends to push a false defense and now arguably her biggest "get" is denying knowing her. Things that make you go hmmmm....Who won't Meghan throw under the bus? That's a question her fake and famous friends gotta be asking themselves. This lawsuit of hers is just all kinds of reactionary dumb.
Thanks again! You made the reasonable point that not having the friends testify doesn't help M and could put her at a disadvantage. Maybe, but...
IF the friends don't have clean hands (and personally I don't believe they do, however many of them there actually are) having them not testify is of value to M if she's nervous about whether when "push comes to shove," they really will perjure themselves for her and further, will sound believable while doing it.
IF there really aren't any friends at all and M was the only informant for the article, then M has to do whatever is necessary to keep that fact from coming out. (I doubt that's the case myself--how could she trust the truth would never come out from the People mag end? But perhaps I have doubts because I don't know just how $cozy$ she is with the magazine.)
On the other hand, if she really didn't know "5 close friends" would discuss such intimate details of her life with the media---discussing not only her relationship with Thomas but details of when she knew what about his health and his participation in her wedding, what her letter said to him, what his letter said to her plus details of her relationship with God and the Archbishop of Canterbury, if she has maintained those friendships since the article was published over a year ago in Feb 2019, that does raise eyebrows. Legally perhaps it's not relevant except that based on the court hearing today, M apparently wants DM and the MoS to be held responsible for her nearly 2-year estrangement from Thomas. If she's not estranged from the 5 friends, why is she estranged from Thomas?
Whichever of the above is true (and 1 has to be--there are either 5 friends or there aren't, M either knew in advance or she didn't) I do wonder why she is so convinced she'll pull this off. The copyright issue could be an easier sell than some have said but the privacy claim?
As you say, we'll see!
My personal belief is that MoS, along with every other paper or media in the UK GB, was taking the temperature of the citizens, and decided to take on the two losers in court. Who is paying for the HAMS lawsuit? Most Americans do not know, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the plaintiff who brings a civil lawsuit upon a defendant, if the plaintiff loses the lawsuit, he/she/them must pay for all the fees and costs if all costs borne by the defendants.
The point of MOS, aka Daily Mail, Sunday Times, etc., not settling is that they keep the two losers in the news, and everybody loves a train wreck, like the HAMS. DM makes more money, the HAMS become even more of a laughingstock, and the two rats will be blamed for any illnesses of the Queen, DofE or Tom M, making them even more of a disaster. The UK libel and civil laws are a bit hard to understand, but everybody hates liars, Daddy haters, deserters, dumbasses, hypocrites, and people who destroy our world, from a 1,000 year old traditional institution (without the BRF, nobody would think GB is special) to the environment (ho many mansions do two unemployable adults need?)
Her five friends: Me, Myself, I, Meghan and Rachel.
@Svetlana: Good one!
I agree it seems incredulous that she would try to get away with faking the 5 friends, but remember... many of us are convinced that she tried to get away with faking a pregnancy!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/no-the-queen-doesnt-have-legal-custody-over-her-great-grandchildren/ar-BBMlpzZ
I think Megs and her pal who is pals with the editor comprise the 5 friends.
And I think she's the client from hell for her legal team. Ha! And her pr team. And all her teams.
I'm starting to feel sorry for her.
This saga has gone to wtf-land more and more.
Why is Megs so duplicitous???
I've come to think that lying is survival mode for her and has been for most of her life. She's had to lie and create a facade to actually survive - she may have been abused/molested and developed distorted coping strategies. It happens, sadly.
Your right about the Queen not having custody of great-grandchildren! This issue has been extensively discussed here numerous times It is pretty simple if the Harkles start a custody case here (Calif) while they are residents, jurisdiction would be Calif. Period. The Hague convention (International law of which US and UK are signatories) would support the jurisdiction of the location where the child is a resident if there is a dispute between two litigants in different countries. My comments are general statements and by no means account for untypical circumstances. I won't continue to add anything else as I don't want to belabor the issue.
I have a little bit of experience with the grandparents’ rights thing, specifically in California.
California considers the child’s home (geographically) where they’ve lived the last six months. That means, from the beginning, it gets ugly.
If we believe the spin, Archie was in Canada for the last six months. Supposedly they didn’t come to California until mid to late March. However, it could be said that Archie wasn’t RESIDING in Canada until the H&M left the UK in January. It was announced via the media in November that they were taking a break. That is not taking up residence, it is vacation. If a judge finds that to be true, jurisdiction will probably shift back to the UK.
There are some provisions that would allow the jurisdiction to fall in California if a child didn’t meet the six-month requirement, but I’m sure considering the sensitivity of the case (great grandchild of a head of state) a judge may not even go there.
So onto grandparents’ rights. Grandparents in California do have rights. However, the rules tend to lean towards preserving a relationship versus establishing one. Family Code section 3100. Specifically:
3104. (a) On petition to the court by a grandparent of a minor child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the grandparent if the court does both of the following: (1649)
(1) Finds that there is a preexisting relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild that has engendered a bond such that visitation is in the best interest of the child. (1650)
(2) Balances the interest of the child in having visitation with the grandparent against the right of the parents to exercise their parental authority. (1651)
Thomas Markle has NO preexisting relationship with Archie. That means he does not meet the first test.
I’m not suggesting TM should not be allowed to see Archie. I’m just saying based on California Family Code, there is certainly no guarantee.
OK, that was very long winded. I will try to do more than lurk going forward. LOL!
Regardless of whether the Queen has/has not legal custody.
Could Charles act as de facto parent/guardian for Archie
if Harry was proved to be of unsound mind?
Now that would be a legal battle, future King V madam.
Regina V Vag..a. 😉
Hahahaha 🤣
Hehehe, next we’ll be discussing Megs & her organisms? 😜
California is a lot tougher on grandparents than parents.
I worked for a family law attorney for about a year. In that time, we had 8 or 9 grandparents’ rights cases. Only one full win and one partial win.
I honestly would love to see TM try for visitation. However, with a low chance of success as well as the huge cost involved it might be an exercise in futility.
Like you said, there aren't any easy answers.
Internet photo so as not to identify exactly where I live.
Would that complicate things?
hmmmm, wonder who they are referring to here?
https://heatworld.com/ (On front page today.)
It's quite common for reporters to "feed" quotes to people and say, "Can I quote you as saying X?"
This is not always malevolent: let's say a NYT or WSJ reporter calls someone who tells some kind of rambling story of government or corporate misdeeds that doesn't really hang together into a useful quote.
The reporter might say, "Can I quote you as saying McDonalds knew its Filet-o-Fish would make women go bald?"
The same might have happened at "People", although being basically a PR outfit, they might have gone a step further.
Meg might have provided a quote - like the notorious:
“We had a couple of days together recently. Her husband was out of town on work. In the room she made up for me, there was a candle lit by the bed, slippers and a robe. We were the only two in the house. It was our time. She made the most lovely meals. She made tea every day. It was raining and muddy outside, so the dogs got all dirty, and she’s wiping them off with towels. How much she loves her animals, how much she loves her friends, how much she loves feeding you, taking care of you — none of that has changed.
to People and said, this is from Genevieve Hillis, or whoever.
People calls up Genevieve and says, "Can we confirm that you are the source saying this?" Genevieve says sure, why not.
Ta-da - Meg's written all the quotes (and it certainly sounds like her) but People can defend itself when they say that they've spoken to her "five friends."
But the quote itself certainly sounds like an out-take from the Tig, so I imagine that Meg had a hand in writing it.
We've all seen enough of her writing now (via Sussex Royal) to pick out a few cue words. "Kind" and "Kindness" are two of them; "grass-roots" is another. "Shine a light", is a Meg classic.
IMO it is the residency of the child that is 'controlling' in this hypothetical case. Residency has been 'well settled in Calif. law'. Others are making the issue complicated but it is not if the child's residence is Calif. Even if Harry absconds with Archie, then the Hague Convention (Int'l law) would kick in and jurisdiction would (if nothing untoward happened) be the child's residency of the custodial parent before kidnapping (or other wild situation). I am stating this as an opinion only.
I personally do not think they would be so stupid as to have a bitter custody fight but then again they continue to surprise me with how low they would go.
It's quite common for reporters to "feed" quotes to people and say, "Can I quote you as saying X?"
a-da - Meg's written all the quotes (and it certainly sounds like her) but People can defend itself when they say that they've spoken to her "five friends."
Is there any kind of journalism where this is verbotten? It seems like this could cause some legal issues, but maybe I'm just jaded and cynical.
Most people don't speak in sound bites, and they often put in a lot of extraneous information that is useless to the listener.
Journalists edit out extra crud all the time. The source says something like: "So Mike, he's the head of McDonald's, and I met him through my sister, she used to go out with his tennis partner, but when I met him, which was last summer - or maybe it was the summer before that? I don't know, it was before I got my hair cut much shorter - anyway Mike said that McDonalds, which was talking about hiring me for for a really good job, knows stuff they don't always tell the public, like for example, it knew totally knew that Filet-o-Fish, which has been on the menu for like 50 years, could potentially make women bald, but they didn't take it off the menu, and could I keep that secret? I said yeah, but I couldn't take the job though because my husband didn't want to move house because we just did all this home renovation with a new kitchen and all."
And then the journo says, "So, can I quote you as saying McDonald's knew Filet-o-Fish could make women go bald?"
The journo is just double-checking to make sure the reduced and rephrased quote matches something the source can stand up for when the fact-checker calls. (Although the fact-checker doesn't call that often any more, given the sharply reduced staff at most media outlets.)
We discussed this a while back -
If, and to me it looks like a big `if', a child called Archie was really born in London to Rache, and she wanted him to have American citizenship, as well as his automatic British citizenship, she should have gone to the American Embassy soon after the birth to register the birth.
As far as we know, there’s no evidence of her having done this. It would have been a great photo-op.
OK, perhaps she didn't know it is not automatic - just like the suspicion that she didn't know about the `born of the body'rule.
Or, perhaps there is no child called `Archie’ at all.
Likewise, is there any copper-bottomed, incontrovertible, evidence of Archie being in California, Canada, or anywhere else at all? Especially when one remembers that he had a shadowy pre-existence solely in the minds of his parents.
Soft toys, plastic dolls and other people's children don't count.
The question of fraud/corruption
I commented on the question of fraud a few days ago but I don't think anyone picked up on it.
Briefly - there could have been all sorts of fraud perpetrated by the Dumb-Dumbs: common fraud, fraudulent conversion, and matrimonial fraud, for example, plus the one we’re most familiar with, psychological fraud.
Most of these are both reprehensible and criminal.
Something new today
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/duchess-sussex-asked-friend-try-014544353.html
An allegation that she tried to get Jessica to influence a news report in her favour.
I suppose they could call Genevieve to the stand and ask her, "Did you tell People Magazine that 'This is our time (etc. etc.)'? Is this a quote from you?"
And Genevieve could say, "I said something along those lines, and discussed it with a People editor (or Meg's Sunshine Sachs rep, who sent it along to People)
The lawyer says: "Did you say it in precisely those words?"
Genevieve says: "I told her the story of my visit and she made it sound nice and read it back to me."
The lawyer says: "Does this reflect your experience visiting Kensington Palace on October 10, 2018?"
Genevieve says: "Yes, it does."
Done and dusted.
The more relevant question is - did Genevieve approach People with her story, as the article implies, or did Sunshine Sachs (or some other representative of Meg) approach People with a package of quotes from Genevieve and 4 other people?
My guess is the latter, which raises questions about how much Meg's "privacy was invaded".
Tim Cook or Elon Musk or Bill Gates all have a large team of people to make them sound good, and they just sign off on the quotes.
Unless you see it come out of their mouths, they didn't compose it, and even if it does come out of their mouths they probably did a lot of pre-interview prep work with their media teams to pick the right messages and the right vocabulary for those messages.
I certainly see your point that so far as winning a specific part of her case goes, M likely needs testimony from the "5 friends." I don't disagree with you at all.
But I don't think M really thought the case would get to this point. I think she thought the MoS would cave and settle for lots of money and a public promise to never ever treat her so "unfairly" again. She could then use that "win" to control other outlets with threats, overt or implied. Had the October change in the law not forced her hand, I expect more time would have been devoted to achieving that end. And too, I suspect both she and Harry have had good success with making threats in the past. The RF has treated poor fragile not too bright Harry with kid gloves and I expect Thomas did the same with M for other reasons. And Harry did say in his first rant to the press back in 2016 there were "the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers." I'd say he was pretty successful in exerting control over the press back then. I doubt M was so anxious to keep "defamatory" material out of the papers even then as she's always been a publicity hound. (And some "news stories" then obviously came from her like the supposed house break-in story.) But having Harry wage nightly battles for her honor helped to cement his devotion to her.
Perhaps contrary to the feedback M's gotten from her legal team, she's convinced herself she'll win regardless of the evidence she can actually produce (and her legal team did make claims about Thomas's state of mind in court filings with no way to know if they were true.) So M's focus now is simply to avoid having the set up of Thomas come to light.
Whether there were 5 friends or even any friends, I am 100% convinced it was a set up for reasons that have been discussed here before. And the People article was the needed bait in that trap so it had to happen one way or the other.
It could be as @Nutty suggested the quotes were fed to People and that's not something M would want to have come to light. Surely the MoS attorneys would ferret that out if the friends were produced as surely attorneys for the media are aware of that practice even if the general public is not. (I can't say I was, especially in a piece that's not a news story about a scandal like "McDonald's food causes baldness" but is a story based entirely on the content of interviews, interviews that the friends purportedly instigated themselves.) And too, in a more "casual" situation it may work to say yes, we talked to X and X verified she was quoted correctly prior to publication. I'm not so sure it works in a court situation where the origin, process of development, and timeline of a published article are of importance.
One thing I've not seen discussed much--- Thomas said M mailed her letter to her "agent" in CA and her agent mailed it to Thomas. What possible reason was there to do it that way? I mean if I wanted to send a private letter to a family member, I certainly wouldn't send it through an intermediary. I suppose she could say it was to keep her staff from knowing she was writing to Thomas? (I guess she can't just pop off to the post office by herself.) Sounds a bit paranoid but could be true, I guess.
One last question, is there any reason Harry would be asked to testify? Harry's texts to Thomas are in those noodles M has thrown against the wall, after all. I'm aware of spousal privilege but that seems murky since his texts have been put in the record.
I agree that Megs never thought it would end up in court.
She was expecting a nice big settlement (5% to charity) a front page apology,
and control/threat over future commentary.
Her world domination, starting with the press.
Must have been a shock even for her when MOS said bring it on.
What Megs wants, she got, but not in the way she planned?
“ His success has revitalised a family reeling from the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal claims surrounding Prince Andrew, which William’s uncle denies.
And from the decision by younger brother Harry to throw off the royal yoke for a new life in the Californian sunshine.
While Harry and Meghan were busy issuing their bulletin on which media they would and would not talk to, William and Kate, 38, were just getting on with talking to everyone.
Harry did not deny that the elephant was drugged and (more importantly since this is what was cropped out of his IG post) shackled. In fact, that photograph had been published before on the KP Instagram in its entirety (and before Megsy was a part of his life and thus controlling it).
I am not sure what he was trying to prove by making the complaint to IPSO, but he lost and here are the details:
'Harry said that the article was inaccurate because it implied that he deliberately mislead the public by cropping the photo. Keep in mind that unedited versions of these pictures had been widely circulated in 2016, so no one was trying to hide anything.
However, IPSO found that the images could have been edited differently on Instagram, and that the Duke did not make it sufficiently clear that unedited versions of the photos were available elsewhere.
In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly misleading to report that the photographs posted on the complainant’s Instagram account did not quite tell the full story and that the complainant had not explained the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken.'
"Meghan and Harry have their supporters in the British press. An article on the website of the left-leaning New Statesman called their decisions “long overdue” on the grounds that the papers in question “were intent on making their lives worse.” And it’s inarguable that Meghan has taken a beating in the press, generally.
"Analysis conducted and published in January by the Guardian (a left-leaning liberal paper that is no great flag-waver for the royal family) found that Meghan got twice as many negative headlines as positive ones."
Don't they see there's a reason why she was getting such negative headlines? She's made so many bad calls and misjudgements, spent so much British taxpayers' money and hasn't shown a shred of gratitude, respect or humility, even to our Queen. Drives me crazy when journalists just won't go there. They leave the argument hanging in mid-air.
It's part of a `Come the Revolution...'mode of thought.
In addition, I reckon the MOS (Daily Mail and all editions) have evidence of Megsy 'interfering' to get stories she wants out there (talking to the media 'through friends') and thus can make a convincing argument that Megsy was behind the People article (add that they were exact quotes used and revealed an intimate knowledge of both letters almost as if they were in front of them at the time of the interview and certainly that they were shared with People to get everything so spot on accurate, including punctuation). She thus invaded her own privacy through the 'friends'.
On straightforward copyright, Megsy has a case. The excerpts published were beyond what is reasonable for fair use, and they were published without her permission. More importantly, her father could have defended himself without publishing those excerpts (or by using just a sentence or two as quotes, as her 'friends' had done). Any damages awarded would be simply punitive as there was not material damage to Megsy, and any damage to her reputation had no effect whatsoever on her material well-being or position and role in the BRF. If I was the judge and wanted to 'punish' the MOS (copyright protection is important) I would instruct Megsy to nominate an organisation (or more) for a big donation (e.g. Braille Books for the blind or Recorded Books for the blind) and award her personally nothing more than an apology.
What do you think of the claim that seems to amount to "they didn't publish enough of my letter" so it was misleading? I'm not sure where that fits re: the charge they published too much of the letter or the official 3 charges of copyright violation, misuse of private information, and the data protection violation. I guess it is part of the privacy claim.
I can think of a remedy though. Force the MoS to publish the full letter!
MoS strategy must be to blow-up the "five friends" narrative. To show what a phony concoction it was and is. Once MoS wins they should counter sue for defamation by the two idiots and SS. No one ever sues a Royal, but one sues ex-Royals who are unpopular in the UK. In fact their then Royal status was part of the original Megsy genius brainstorming and extortion plot. Thinking that MoS will surely cave in pre-trial, giving us two million pounds or more, because we are the popular Sussex Royals. Plus cost free for us to take this bet, Charles is paying for our lawyers.
Charles will be damaged on all this, so will turn colder on the Dumbartons. An embarrassment to the future King.
Serena was also busy planning the OTT shower at this point with Genevieve, so she (Serena) seemed quite involved in Meme's life during this time period and had access to all the "friends" who appeared to be part of the article AND the shower.
I think Serena was the perfect dupe for Meme. Serena had the money, the PR clout, and was convinced her "friend" was being treated unfairly and needed to be defended. Not doubt she is regretting this decision as much as her decision to ruin Naomi's win.
On a different topic, someone upthread asked why Meme sent her letter first to her agent in CA. She probably wanted a witness to the contents of the letter and the time period she sent it, otherwise Thomas could dispute it.
I am getting a little tired of the comparisons with Diana and her relationships to family, friends, and the press. All of them dance around the critical difference, which is that Harry is in this relationship with Meghan. Diana had nothing analogous that I am aware of.
When will a journalist tackle the elephant in the room, which is that Harry’s Diana-esque personality and intelligence (lack thereof) made him vulnerable to a grifter like Meghan, and their relationship - the toxic combo - is what led them to utter dishonesty and their current isolation, anger, and desperation? I mean an actual member of the press vs a blogger.
"Someone upthread asked why Meme sent her letter first to her agent in CA. She probably wanted a witness to the contents of the letter and the time period she sent it, otherwise Thomas could dispute it."
That someone was me. You could be right. I had considered that possibility (re: the time letter was sent), but it seems to me there are simpler ways to document delivery of mail. And unless the letter was sent unsealed/open, the agent wouldn't have known what he/she was sending along to TM. And if it was open for an agent to read, then just how private a letter was it?
No one writes to their pop like that normally - too time consuming. Plus Thomas wears stained clothes and sweats in public - he’s a bit of a slob TBH - so don’t tell me she has to send beautiful letters to him alone. Dads don’t care.
Can’t they do something with that?
She's just too stupid for words.
Meghan Markle claims a 'dark angel' who looked like Darth Vader 'tore out my heart'
That she had an electronic copy probably made it easier for her to share the actual letter with friends/People magazine, but for her father's letter, I bet she typed out excerpts or copied excerpts to share (not the whole letter) or simply told her friends/People magazine about the bits she wanted to appear in the article. Unlike with her letter, the bits from her father's letter that her friends/People magazine spoke of were not direct quotes.
Hers was not a letter written from her heart as daughter to father but carefully constructed. Besides, if she wanted to communicate with her father, she could have answered his calls or called him or herself, or even gone to see him. That letter was all about Meghan, and she had spent so much time constructing it that it must have been immensely frustrating for it to not become public.
I have no doubt she showed it to her friends (she was proud of it), and perhaps excerpts from her fathers' letter, but it really does seem obvious that she was behind that People article. It was her masterpiece and she wanted it to be public. Besides, her friends described her as heavily pregnant at the time when she was less than 6 months, and was carrying a small baby (judging by his birth weight). Which one of her friends, other than the make-up guy, is so hysterical that they would exaggerate so wildly?
There seems to be a lot of deluded/fantasy thinking with Megsy and perhaps this is part of what has caused her to end up in such a mess (really, it is a mess). I would avoid taking the stand if I were her because a good barrister can expose and get her to unravel quite easily. The more she talks the worse it will be for her, but in her deluded mind her endless talk is a winning strategy! Nightmare client, unless she is paying normal fees instead of a share of the financial award 'when she wins the case'.
You are right. Megs expected out of court settlement and future control over coverage. She will get a nasty court case with full disclosure instead. MoS will not put everything they have out on day one, they will drag the case as long as they reasonably can to teach her a lesson. Even if she wins she will be chewed and spat out.
The letter was meant to be publiced and she thought Thomas would show it to the papers. But he didn't so she provoked him to do so via the five friends.
There is so much work behind that letter, normal people with no hidden agenda would just have used the phone.
She is such a deranged woman.
https://ladygreyhound93.tumblr.com/image/616320772592615424
Yep ... the DM saying they are all woman is a distraction (of course Danial is one of the 5). The inclusion of Harry is intriguing but solves my problem of trying to find a 4th.
Now, on a TV show I could write the script and insist that this gets exposed, but can the court case really get that messy?
"It is possible that she did not have an address for her father, or did not know if the address she had was a valid one, and so she used an intermediary.."
Maybe. But it had only been a few months since the wedding. Supposedly she knew where he lived well enough around the time of the wedding to send a security team to his house...
If her business manager in LA (150 miles from Rosarito Beach) had to figure out her father's address probably from an online search, why couldn't she?
"Sending the letter to her father via a business manager in LA was passive aggressive ... the irrational act of a narcissist?"
That's probably it. I think I remember TM saying he felt hurt it was sent through an office so mission accomplished.
Adverse spousal testimony privilege (spousal privilege): Prosecutor or party to civil proceeding cannot force your spouse to testify against you. Raised by witness spouse who is not a party to the lawsuit or defendant in a criminal proceeding.
Thanks for mentioning them. I never heard of the Gap Girls but here they are in all their glory. I immediately recognized David Spade and John Farley but the quivering one on the right eluded me. Had to scroll down to find out. Your Covid laugh of the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMitjMTi__4
@Sandie wrote:
"Sending the letter to her father via a business manager in LA was passive aggressive ... the irrational act of a narcissist?"
That's probably it. I think I remember TM saying he felt hurt it was sent through an office so mission accomplished.
I agree. It screams "You're not important enough for ME to waste MY precious time looking up your address or picking up a phone. That's for the little people."
What a *itch.