Here's a fresh post to continue discussing Sussex drama.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
Very professional run-down on the case so far here:
https://www.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/duchess-of-sussex-court-ruling-friends-identities/
7.42am here - just under 3 hrs to go?
If they’re not named now, they will be in the divorce case.
All a matter of time.
Coffee's made . . . WAY too early for popcorn . . .
https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markles-five-closest-friends-could-named-judgement-tomorrow-1522719
If this case proceeds, I see no way we won't learn who these friends are. They are integral to the "facts"
https://youtu.be/Zcs_O7O5EkU
Prince Harry 'resents the perception that Prince William is the sensible one while he's the loose cannon' and has often been the one advising his older brother, royal commentator claims.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8595133/Prince-Harry-hates-William-sensible-one.html
Good morning every one.
My coffee has just finished being made. I'm ready for the news to come out.
--from Central time zone, US.
Not sure when the news will be released
talkradio.co.uk/live
Hold fast, folks - it may mean that reporting restrictions have been imposed rather than that they remain unnamed in court, at least I hope that's what it means.
Perhaps His Lordship doubts her story and thinks they may be innocent and shouldn't be named publicly/ be dragged into it at this stage.
It could change.
Looks like she only won a temporary order. That is, to protect their privacy this early in the case. Sounds to me like he wants to keep the witness’ truthful and not compromise the case as time goes on. Seems sensible. Says it’s not a permanent ruling and it can change.
So, this makes sense to me. It will come out during the case as MOS proves the need to interview them. Nothing to really see here. She’ll have to keep fighting for them to be private all year and that just won’t work.
Interesting too, that it doesn’t give her much to go on and the case will proceed.
`interim decision' He said he would confer protection on the sources identities “for the time being at least”.
Meghan Markle wins High Court battle as she stops five of her friends being named
Rebecca Taylor
Royal Correspondent
Yahoo News UK5 August 2020
The identity of five close friends of Meghan Markle who disclosed information about a private letter written to her father can not be revealed, a judge has ruled.
Meghan, 39, is suing the Mail On Sunday and the MailOnline over five articles which reproduced part of her letter to her 76-year-old father written a few months after she married Prince Harry.
As part of the case, she confidentially named five friends who spoke to People magazine, she says without her knowledge, about the letter, but claims Associated Newspapers Ltd, the publisher of Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, wanted to name them publicly.
Her team launched an urgent bid to keep their names private throughout court proceedings, saying they have a right to stay anonymous based on being confidential journalistic sources and private citizens.
On Wednesday, the judge, Mr Justice Warby, ruled the names should stay private “for the time being at least”, hinting that the decision could be reversed at a later date.
ANL has resisted the application. Part of their case hinges on the fact that Meghan’s friends mentioned the letter to her father when they spoke to People magazine, which led to Thomas Markle releasing it to the Mail On Sunday.
Last week, Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the duchess, said in written submissions to the court: “To force the claimant, as the defendant urges this court to do, to disclose their identities to the public at this stage would be to exact an unacceptably high price for pursuing her claim for invasion of privacy against the defendant in respect of its disclosure of the letter.
“On her case, which will be tried in due course, the defendant has been guilty of a flagrant and unjustified intrusion into her private and family life.
“Given the close factual nexus between the letter and the events leading up to the defendant’s decision to publish its contents, it would be a cruel irony were she required to pay that price before her claim has even been determined.”
Rushbrooke says the defendant has “forced” Meghan to name them privately in the documents
Antony White QC, acting for ANL, said the friends were “important potential witnesses on a key issue”.
He said: “Reporting these matters without referring to names would be a heavy curtailment of the media’s and the defendant’s entitlement to report this case and the public’s right to know about it.
“No friend’s oral evidence could be fully and properly reported because full reporting might identify her, especially as there has already been media speculation as to their identities.”
White claimed Meghan’s order would mean she could name them to anyone, including other media publications, but ANL would be barred from reporting on them.
ANL won the first court battle on 1 May when Mr Justice Warby struck out parts of Meghan’s arguments, including that ANL acted “dishonestly” in leaving out some parts of the letter she wrote to her father.
Losing the skirmish left Meghan with a bill for £67,888 as she agreed to pay ANL’s costs for the hearing.
Meghan is suing over five articles which appeared across the Mail On Sunday and the MailOnline in February 2019 which reproduced part of her letter to her 76-year-old father written a few months after she married Prince Harry.
The main article headline was: “Revealed: The letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces.”
She is seeking damages from ANL for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.
ANL denies the allegations, particularly her claim the letter was edited in any way.
The case is expected to go to full trial next year.
I suppose they could still be called as Witnesses A-E.
Naturally, the Beeb won't think it that important.
It is not a permanent one. Makes sense to keep it at the preliminary stage. If it goes to the trial they will be named.
Note Mr. Justice Warby said "for the time being." That means their names can (and probably will) be released at trial. Also note that MoS has not taken the bait and publicized the name of Abigail Spencer that MM's team "accidentally" let slip.
I really think MM thought she'd get a nice fat settlement and never go to trial. Surprise!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sim and many sites dedicated to his `WTO'
I offer it to you as an example not only of someone who sits on a loo in the medically-approved `Thinker Position' but as someone who came from a desperately poor home in Singapore, started as a child helping his mother in her sewing business, went into construction, and finally started a real not-for-profit organisation doing good on a worldwide scale.
I hope the folks hit by the tropical storm yesterday are doing okay. (If you didn't get to take a southern vacation this year, the south came to you.) Tropical storms and depressions can create quite a bit of havoc with the electrical outages and flooding if the storm is slow.
Thank you so much for your contribution to `Oh What a Lovely Wh*re'.
I'm sure there must be other First War Songs we can parody -
`Keep the home fores burning,
Harry still is yearning...'
What about-
Mademoiselle from Armentières?
Apres la Guerre finis
We Don't Want to Lose you, but...
and
Good- byee!
Also see http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/body-and-mind/some-sounds-of-the-war/
I really must get on now - it's almost lunchtime!
Identities of five of Meghan Markle's friends who briefed People magazine about her relationship with her father will remain a secret 'for the time being', judge rules...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8594961/Identities-Meghan-Markles-friends-remain-secret-judge-rules.html
"The judge expressed frustration in his judgment at the speed the case has been proceeding at, insisting that it needed to move faster.
He said: 'I have also concluded that directions towards a trial must be given promptly. The case has been slowed down by case management issues. It should now move forward at a greater pace. Disclosure, inspection and exchange of witness statements comes next.'....Mr Justice Warby set a window of next January to April for when a trial could take place, lasting between five to seven days."
Is it me? could the Megxit review and the trial actually happen at the same time?
The Kraken awaits.......
I don't buy the excuse either about young mothers, because they drag Kate every chance they get.
“Generally, it does not help the interests of justice if those involved in litigation are subjected to, or surrounded by, a frenzy of publicity. At trial, that is a price that may have to be paid in the interests of transparency. But it is not a necessary concomitant of the pretrial phase.”
I don't understand how the 5 would not be called as witnesses although M's side keeps saying that. But even if only 1 of the 5 mentioned the letter to the reporter, wouldn't all 5 still be called to see if any of them were talking at M's behest? Can someone explain why 4 or more may not be called?
I'm sure I read a British Royal correspondent/editor saying exactly the same thing - having to wait for formal announcements previously, then suddenly all these tales began to emerge. Didn't it happen with regard to the engagement announcement?
When might be the `best' time for the trial, before or after the 12-month review?
I see that Catherine released a whole bunch of info about her activities on Meghan's birthday. LOL
She did, didn't she? Brilliant move by her team!
Plus, Catherine looks lovely in the photos -- and what she has done for her charities is perfectly "on brand" for her!
Thanks. That makes sense. I was thinking of the 5 as hostile witnesses mainly.
@WBBM
I think that may have been Shallon Lester who used to be with Star Magazine (or she is at least one person who reported it).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIgkBMas9vo
At about 4:30 in
Do we know whether ANL is counter-suing or not? I can't see them letting her off the hook if they can help it.
I wonder what else she can bring up to hang it out?
Yes. IF whether M knew the friends would talk to reporters is an important legal point, I don't see how the 5 wouldn't be called, at least by the MoS. It's almost as though M expects her purported lack of foreknowledge and claimed lack of collusion to be accepted as fact simply because she says so (& maybe her husband says so.)
At one point her attorneys said something about her friends having "journalistic freedom." But that doesn't seem to fit to me. A reporter may try to protect sources but that not the same as sources refusing to say if they were sources. Is it? And this isn't a "whistle-blower" type of case anyway.
Full ruling:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf
The defendant suggests that the claimant’s side briefed the press in relation to this application, and the evidence bears this out.
The record shows that the application notice and supporting witness statements were all submitted for filing at 8:06am and filed at 8.32am.
The evidence of Mr Mathieson is that they were served on the defendant at 8:30am and that by 8:45am, within 15 minutes of receiving the application, he received a call from a representative of Sky News asking if he had a comment to make about it.
The defendant’s side had not made the application public.
At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”.
Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely.
From 10:02 the national media were reporting at length on the content of the claimant’s witness statement. The Sun reported under the headline “GAME PLAYING. Meghan Markle says ‘I’m not on trial’ as she tried to ban ‘vicious’ naming of pals who gave interview to support her”.
There was much in similar vein, in (among other outlets) Sky News, The Times, The Express online, The Daily Telegraph. Again, no detailed analysis has been conducted but it seems improbable that all this reporting was a product of searches of the CE File system. 28.
Indeed, there is evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset.
"The judge expressed frustration in his judgment at the speed the case has been proceeding at, insisting that it needed to move faster.
He said: 'I have also concluded that directions towards a trial must be given promptly. The case has been slowed down by case management issues.
That translates to: He's getting annoyed with all the non relevant garbage MM's lawyer has presented to the court.
However, in a judgment released today, he said there was evidence that Meghan's side had "briefed the press" about the initial application to stop her friends from being publicly named during the High Court case.
Mr Justice Warby said reporter Mr Scobie - who is set to release a biography about the couple next week - tweeted about the application just 58 minutes after they were filed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12319992/meghan-markle-team-leaked-privacy-row-omid-scobie/
Glad to hear the other tabs are starting to pile on, tho ;)
Yes, thanks. I spotted it after I posted. :)
I think MM is in a heapa trouble no matter what she does. If she pulls out, she owes the MoS all their legal costs and looks like a coward. If she stays in, Mr. Justice Warby WILL rule the 5 friends must be named, IMO -- plus, they've all lawyered up, apparently, and that's not cheap. Is MM worth it as a "friend?"
Gets better and better ... ;)
Anyone notice that Megs PR has gone somewhat quiet besides the lame 10k from sussexroyal
To the cooks charity?
What’s the issue? Budget dry up? Saving budget for Omid’s book? Analytics coming back poorly? Upset at the ruling? So many questions when Meghan goes hiding...
As for the ruling, yeah of course they will be called to witness. They are trying to prove Meghan is suing the wrong defendant and it should be her friends. The reason is it was already in the press by the time they published Thomas response. They didn’t instigate or insite a thing. Nor use poor journalistic judgement. Can’t blame them for defending themselves as this is a professionalism case.
Further, Meg cannot drop the case UNLESS the MOS agrees. They probably want to clear their name at this point, and *stories*.
They can shove their denials about the book to where the Sun is not shining.
Titanic, just Titanic
`... someone called Omid Scobie...'
Brilliant - a good second to `a judge asking (for the benefit of the court's records) "Who are The Beatles?"; the answer being "I believe they are a popular beat combo, m'lud.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_beat_combo
Thanks, Lt!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8594961/Identities-Meghan-Markles-friends-remain-secret-judge-rules.html
I’m guessing they threw it out there to be able to call him as a witness.
Which is amazing work by the DM.
Keep it comin.
@Wild Boar Battle-maid, my pleasure :) -- have to say that Miggy's The Sun link, coming on the heels of my post, actually summarizes the ruling pretty well, even better than The Times, IMO
Channel 5 is running `Meghan and Harry: the New Revelations', 9-10.30 pm BST (8-9.30pm GMT for viewers in Iceland!), to be repeated Thursday at 10pm BST.
Billed as ` A documentary insight into the breakdown of the relationship between the young couple and the rest of the royal family. What might the future hold for Harry and Meghan?'
(Channel 5 had a prog. about the Markles a while back, from which I concluded that Sam was absolutely correct in what she said but the family rather mishandled it.)
This new programme is immediately after `The Queen and Charles: Love and Duty'.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-given-telling-judge-22472902
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWh6aSCP9CI
I've only just got around to watching this but even if you've seen it already, it's worth another viewing in the light of the most recent event!
Taz is particularly good fun here!
Her latest: Did Thomas Get Played
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJhvkX1cHs
"Chatting with Lady Colin Campbell - Meg's Book, Archie, Questions, Facts, Old/New Tricks, Conning."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlU917gDvOQ
Thanks to the community member who helped moderate while I was away.
"So, the official court documents confirm Megsy leaks confidential details to Scobie. Wow."
Admitedly I could be wrong since I am in the US, but can't a litigant talk to someone else and show their court papers/filings to another (like Scobie) as long as there is not a court order requiring confidentiality (which in the US would be so strange as to be unbelievable since court filings are public records upon filing). Like can't Meg talk to her husband, mother, Scobie or whoever if she wants to. Right now there seems to be an order requiring the names of the 5 friends not to be published but prior to today there was nothing to prevent anyone from speaking about what is in the papers?
Is there a freedom of information Act (like we have in the US) in the UK so one can request a copy of the court filings or any govt document? Any Nutties know??
@jessica - “Noticed that about Omid lol, I’m guessing they threw it out there to be able to call him as a witness.”
Poor Scooby-Doo is going to have to use his new money from the book and voice work to pay for his own personal attorney.
Megain seems to be oblivious to the can of worms she is opening with her media games. I’m glad Judge Warby is aware of this pattern.
People magazine is reporting on Megain’s “win.”
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-wins-temporary-right-to-protect-identities-of-her-five-friends/
It is fine talking to a husband or mother and and another matter talking to a stranger who immediately goes public with it. More than once.
The gap between issuing a document and Scobie talking about it online was mere minutes.
The Judge was p***d off about it.
"The gap between issuing a document and Scobie talking about it online was mere minutes.
The Judge was p***d off about it."
Yep. The judge might not have been so pissed if the claimant wasn't trying to stop the press from printing certain information while colluding with at least one reporter to get other info out there!
She plays that game as if she is 12 and has the rights and protections of a child, when in reality it’s all for her own gain monetarily as an adult at 38-42 years of age.
I agree that no adult talks to 5 people about a random piece of drama in their lives. Something would be seriously wrong with you if you needed that much support, didn’t have that much going on requiring such time of attention, etc. As an employed member of the RF and a new family to deal with, no one has that much time.
At least, she of all people shouldn’t. But maybe she does. Lol.
Nutty= Our Fearless Leader.
At least, she of all people shouldn’t.
Does cause one to wonder about the existence of a baby in her household, doesn't it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12319992/meghan-markle-team-leaked-privacy-row-omid-scobie/
Thanks for the link!
Of course we knew all along she was leaking info to Omid. Lady C has been saying for weeks how "Amid Scabies" (ha!) and Sussex team were harassing her to give them privy to her book details. They were relentlessly trying to influence Lady C's narrative.
Lady C has also posed a very interesting question as to why Carolyn Durand is seemingly incommunicado. She's gone silent.
@Birdie - I agree with your comment about Judge Warby having Scooby Doo's number.
Remember he blurted out that Meghan knew the letter would be made public. How has this one fact not shut down the case yet? It directly contradicts her claim in the lawsuit.
The following is from the Daily Express 12 February 2019:
Certain parts of Meghan’s letter directly dispel certain claims Mr Markle has previously made to media outlets.
Omid Scobie, Royal contributor for American network ABC’s Good Morning America, believes Meghan had this in mind when she was writing the letter.
According to Mr Scobie, Meghan knew her letter would be leaked to the public via her father and used it as a chance to “set the record straight”.
First what struck me was that the defendant really did not have a strong case to prevail on this issue (with the Justice even stating they did not challenge some of the stronger points by Meghan's atty's. I believe the Justice strongly supports the confidentiality of the 5 friends because they gave info to People on the condition of anonymity and they were journalistic sources also. Yes the Justice did seemed to find disfavor with Meghan for her apparent attempts to get her side of things in the media thus seeking attention but defendant was criticized for unfair and inaccurate reporting in order to sensationalize the facts. In the end the justice was clearly sympathetic to the 5 friends situation and I believe his order will remain in place henceforth. I found one interesting fact, that it was alleged that 2 out of the 5 friends were identified as being in North America. Much has been said about friend 'A' but from what I read friend 'B' had more involvement in what transpired with People.
Clearly the UK judicial system is very different than in the US as I learned in reading this order. So much is considered confidential when filing a suit in the UK so unlike what happens here (and this is routinely true not just because of a suit like Markle's).
I certainly wouldn't call it a summary just my reading of the judge's opinion about confidentiality and a few other interesting points. It's a 20 page order but like any jurists opinion he recounts what each side is saying as to what they argue with historic legal cases cited and what he sees is relevant with his own research and the order is actually at the end and quite brief. But definitely Markle was criticized for Scobie having legal papers which should have been kept confidential according to UK law regarding case filings; thus it is apparent to the judge (and us) that Megs is using the media to solicit attention and curry favor in the case. I am not surprised at the judge's ruling and really IMO I think the 5 friends are just an ancillary aspect of the case not the heart of the case.
serious question:
How did she "know" her father would reveal the letter with the comment he had done that kind of thing before? implied: his style
What all had he revealed at that time of the letter?
I'm trying to figure out where this letter sent fits into the whole overall time frame of who was saying what and when (from M, JH, BP, her half sister or any other bio family member and her father).
I'm willing to put together the timeline for it (or something else or just everything) if people are willing to send me a link with date saying: so and so said this.
It would be ever so interesting to follow this on a spread sheet (I'm thinking).
Nutty - glad to see you back. Hope the vacation was everything you wanted it to be. You have a good helper. And we missed you.
"I am not surprised at the judge's ruling and really IMO
I think the 5 friends are just an ancillary aspect of the case not the heart of the case."
I'm not an attorney either and have not had personal experience bringing lawsuits (or defending against them, fortunately!)
But the above statement confuses me. I wasn't surprised the names won't be released now. I'm not at all sure what the judge will do later.
More importantly though, I'm not getting how the friends could be an "ancillary" aspect. It seems to me either:
1. They are irrelevant. The legal issue is only did the MoS publish M's letter without her permission? Obviously the answer is yes.
OR
2. They are quite relevant. The legal issue of whether M brought the letter into the public sphere via PEOPLE mag is central. And as the mechanism to get the letter to PEOPLE the friends are central.
Help me understand how the friends could be ancillary please.
I think the MOS lawyers are playing the long game. First, they reveal Scoobie was clearly receiving info from Markle (her attorneys would be risking disbarment) for the purpose of widespread attention on the court case.
They'll certainly bring up her paparazzi collusion in Toronto, that the same outfit was behind Thomas' pre-wedding fiasco AND her Canada 'just taking a walk with a baby doll' shot post-Megxit.
They benefit by stringing out the revelations for clicks AND Markle gets her case hacked apart piece by piece.
Anyone else remember that Monty Python bit where a knight has his arm, his other arm, then his leg, et cetera but he keeps trying to fight? Well, that's Meghan's case. How delightful.
Megs and her con will unfold
Her legion of lies will be told
What will she do next
Send Scobie a text?
When her friends become known
She’ll cuss and bemoan
Whilst raining on her porcelain throne 🚽
Harry’s hyperbolic asserter
is nowt but a common deserter
The judge isn’t thick
he knows every trick
Lets hope he lets rip to besmirch her!
“a disappointing decision which prefers secrecy over openness and creates a concerning precedent”.
My Comment: Justice Warby clearly set out in his ruling why he ruled that he thought the confidentiality was paramount over the issue of "openness". He cited extensive case law and common law to back his ruling.
“The duchess’s friends are important potential witnesses on a key issue in the case,” he said.
My Comment: She is suing the MoS and what they did with the letter. What the friends did was predicated to be confidential with People. MoS did not keep things confidential.
“That she has prevented Associated Newspapers from revealing the identities of those friends undermines the principle of open justice, hinders its ability to report on the case and the ability of the public to follow it.
My Comment: Justice Warby ruled on this issue and he clearly addressed it and does not agree with this unnamed atty assertion regarding 'open justice'. Read his 20 pg ruling and you will understand why Justice warby ruled the way he did.
“The decision is all the more surprising because, in what some may see as a case of double standards, the duchess released copies of her own evidence to the national media whilst stopping Associated Newspapers from reporting details of potentially important witnesses.”
My Comment: Justice Warby looked at the facts, including acknowledging that Meghan did divulge some details but the Judge did not think it had any bearing on the specific issue/ruling regarding keeping the 5 friends confidential. You cant mix apples and oranges on issues.
"I personally think the Judge has just postponed naming the five during pre trial and will name them at the trial but I agree with what the lawyer has said.:
My comment: Justice Warby can change at some point in time if facts arise to make it necessary to reveal the names of the 5 friends. However at this point I don't think the MoS did an adequate job of presenting their case on that point and even left an item or two unchallenged as the Justice details in his ruling. Overall the reason for confidentiality was very strong as it arose from the friends giving their info to People with the understanding they would be confidential journalistic sources.
In addition, I regard the friends as an 'ancillary issue' because Justice Warby only addressed them as part of a People magazine set of confidential interviews and Meghan is suing the Mos because of her father's giving the letter to the publication (which has nothing to do with her friends).
Good pt about Thomas's letter!
@Puds wrote:
"...the papers reveal 2 of the five are from North America. So that may be Jessica and who else? Is Abigail North American? I still think Serena Williams was involved."
Maybe I'm missing something but isn't the US in North America? I've always thought we were. I remember "North America" was assumed to mean Canada when H&M first fled from the UK. But NA is bigger than that.
Re: Serena. I've always thought she was involved too (admittedly for a pretty dumb reason.) I'm not all that familiar with all of the possible friends. But I admit I've heard Serena talk "off the cuff" the most because of her tennis interviews. And Serena says "like" ALL the time. And I believe there were quotes in the article along the lines of "and I was like..." "and she's like.. " "we were like..." Maybe the other possible friends speak that way too when not reading cue cards?
Re: how many "friends" mentioned the letter. I guess M is trying to say only one person could be a possible witness because of that? But if the whole PEOPLE interview was a set up instigated by M, that shouldn't matter, IMO. But I'm not an attorney.
My Comment: She is suing the MoS and what they did with the letter. What the friends did was predicated to be confidential with People. MoS did not want to keep the friends confidential and that is only one issue not the heart of the case. The heart if the case is about copyright, data protection and Meghan's privacy.
"Re: how many "friends" mentioned the letter. I guess M is trying to say only one person could be a possible witness because of that? But if the whole PEOPLE interview was a set up instigated by M, that shouldn't matter, IMO. But I'm not an attorney."
Meghan asserted to the Court that she had nothing to do with her friends talking to People. This is said several ways and repeatedly stated by Meghan and Justice Warby includes it in his ruling today. I am of the mind to think if he doubted the veracity of her statements on this he would have said so. The Justice had no problem calling Meghan out for her exaggerations and apparent misleading assertions on other items.
"I don't see how anyone could call the friends ancillary. They may just be the crux of the case. Markle is certainly aware of this and so is the MOS!"
If the friends were the crux of the matter and Meghan won on their 'issue' today, then why wouldn't she immediately ask for a summary judgement and win her case tomorrow?
Find out just exactly what Megan did at her fabulous birthday just passed...
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-meghan-markles-intimate-39th-birthday-celebration/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm
FYI she’s Totes having a Huge Hollywood bash for her 40th!!!!!
Oh I really want to see that necklace Harry designed for her birthday gift. If it's along the lines of that dinky 'H' and 'M' gold necklace he allegedly gifted her before, it certainly won't be anything of any note. And of course within months she will probably redesign it and add some itty, bitty diamonds (assuming they can afford some).
"Meghan asserted to the Court that she had nothing to do with her friends talking to People. This is said several ways and repeatedly stated by Meghan and Justice Warby includes it in his ruling today. I am of the mind to think if he doubted the veracity of her statements on this he would have said so. The Justice had no problem calling Meghan out for her exaggerations and apparent misleading assertions on other items."
Sorry but I strongly disagree.
I don't think the judge could have said he doubted her on that point. I think (and I understand you don't) that how the letter got to PEOPLE does matter from a legal perspective. IF that (and M's degree of participation) is a point of contention in the case, the judge isn't going to take sides/pre-rule on the issue now.
The areas where he called M out were not aspects of the actual case IMO. Instead they were extraneous "courtroom dramatics/court filings dramatics" much like those that caused the need for the earlier hearing that led to a loss for M.
I’m confused as to who the friends are if only 2 live in North America. Jessica is in Toronto, Benita, Abigail, and Heather are in CA, and Serena is in FL. So all 5 in North America. I think Lindsay is in the UK? I’ve always wondered if Benita would get involved, given that she’s a former lawyer, and I doubt Serena’s involvement as well. I think she’s more about the grand gesture (such as the baby shower), and something like this would be beneath her (unless the quotes were ‘assigned’ to her.) Also, I can’t recall where I read it but only 2-3 of them are ‘famous’, which is why getting their own lawyers is problematic and expensive. I have no idea what determines ‘fame’ in this day & age. I didn’t know who Jessica (or MM) were before JH, and likewise I’d never heard of Abigail. But I guess JM & AS would be considered famous?
Here are my top pics (if the friends really exist);
Jessica (she has to be involved)
Abigail (knew the editor of People)
Heather (I could see her being really upset about the case)
Lindsay (definitely very involved in MM’s life and knew Thomas)
And I’m gonna go with Misha (co-conspirator)
But that still gives us at least 3 in North America. (I think Misha lives in NY & London???)
Does anyone remember who the other person at Wimbledon was?
@Aquagirl
Genevieve Hillis
@Aqua
Yep, sorority 👯♀️
Don’t know f she has children?
Looks like she could be one of the five?
No no is British. As is Scoobie,
now that would be interesting !!
I call Scoobie many things,
but young mother is stretching it!!
Don't reckon she has any British friends apart
from those two??
Or it could be the head of the Grenfell kitchen,
and a grateful staff member from the
Argentine Embassy 😉
@Magatha: IIRC, it was said that ‘most’ of them were young mothers. So maybe Scoobie :)
Katherine McPhee, did “panto” with megs
married David Foster who arranged
the Vancouver house?
I for one, am deeply offended by your claim that Scooby-Doo is not and cannot possibly be one of the "young mothers" in MM's mind. Just because Scoo was born with a dick. Luv your random verses-poetry.
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” ===== For Swamp Woman and others. George Orwell wrote this many long years ago.
For instance, Soldier F in the Bloody Sunday trials
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-52636491
Were the Markle case solely about copyright, I think it could be open and shut - yes the paper did breach copyright. Even if she gave friends permission to talk to People, in the US, that doesn't allow MoS to breach it here.
--------------
`Revealing sources' strikes me as odd here - I'd expect People to protect their sources, as any good publication should, but this is about further back in the chain, not a publication refusing to reveal how they got hold of the story. How does it apply to Megsy's flying monkeys, if that is how the letter got out in the first place?
On the other hand, or rather in Megsy's hands, the matter has morphed into a privacy case. She seems able to live with an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance in her mind - she's almost ceaselessly yapping on about privacy and simultaneously leaking to the press without apparently realising what she's doing.
MoS might be able to argue it's a public interest case (not the same as the public being interested, which we are!). That is, it's important for the public to know for certain if a new member of the Royal is as corrupt/twisted/dangerous as she appears, when she apparently is both, IMO, blatant and flagrant in her behaviour.
See: https://writingexplained.org/blatant-vs-flagrant-difference
---------------
Btw, I read something yesterday by a journalist who interviewed H before he met her. I'm sorry, I don't note the reference so this is hearsay but I'll try and find it again.
Said journalist, IIRC, saw the depth of bitterness/envy/hatred Harry displayed towards his kin that H displayed - over his mother's death and Wm's position by comparison with his. It sounds to me that M could be the accomplice he'd been seeking for years, even if he underestimated how much she might be using him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8595133/Prince-Harry-hates-William-sensible-one.html
Perhaps I read more into it than was justified...
@xxxxx @Unknown
Cheers!
But Omid lied about his age.
For all we know he could be Omidia,
wife and mother of Markus children,
Chlamydia and Didhedoher?
@WildBoar
Mademoiselle from Armentières
Parlez - Vous
Inky pinky parlez - vous
I’ve left the original verse, changed the rest.
Could have been written for her!
Putain Tu is probably the correct tense,
but I like Putain Vous!!
Madam Markle from who knows where
Putain - vous
You didn’t have to know her long
To know the reason men go wrong
Winky twinkie putain - vous
She’s the hardest working girl in town
But she makes her living upside down
Winky kinky putain - vous
The cooties rambled through her hair
She whispered sweetly “C’est la guerre”
Winky stinky putain - vous
She’ll do it for wine, she’ll do it for rum
And sometimes for chocolates or chewing gum
Winky blinky putain - vous
C’est la guerre Megsie!! 🇬🇧
@Aqua
Hahaha, who knows, anything and everything
she and her gobsters say is a lie.
The one thing I do believe is that
she was never pregnant.
I was about to publish a somewhat bitchy article from Nz Herald today - from Oz. Still, there's a bit of shade at the end:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12353796
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12344475
New tea there?
Technically Thomas is in breach. That is why the case was widely called Markle vs Markle.
But she can't sue her father, not even she. Hence the case against the newpaper.
I am waiting to see how MoS will spin this.
@xxxxx @Unknown
Cheers!
But Omid lied about his age.
For all we know he could be Omidia,
wife and mother of Markus children,
Chlamydia and Didhedoher
___________________________________________
@ Magatha Mistie,
YOU owe me a NEW laptop due to my spitting COFFEE all over the keyboard due to YOU making me LAUGH MY HEAD OFF! :D
AND with "Putain-vous"! To quote Sylvester the cat, "You're deth-pickable!"
:) (Thanks for the laffs!)
Tatler.
Judge accuses Duchess of Sussex of ‘energetically briefing the media’ about court case.
https://www.tatler.com/article/judge-accuses-duchess-of-sussex-using-media-legal-battle-associated-newspapers
although i kind of agree (if she had sense) serena propbaly wouldn’t be one of the 5, she’s female and has a baby/ family.
also i seem to remember her posting an instagram of herself “sipping tea” a day or so before the 5 frinds poeple article came out.
so i think if she wasnt one of the 5, she definitly knew the article was about to drop. so how would she know? MM told her, friend A - the organizer told her or asked her to take part, or she was one of the friends.
i need to start a timeline to keep track of the MM drama! its so confusing, MM probably belives her own lies now.
"I don't know where that North American quote came from. I think it's a mistake of some sort."
I mentioned upthread when discussing Justice Warby's ruling. Since your tone has been shrill about my circumscripted opinion on the issue perhaps you overlooked it. I get the feeling you haven't read the Judge's ruling?
Since I did take the time to read the ruling twice, here is the Exact Quote:
"Pointing out that at least two are known to reside in North America he observes that in
law, individuals who reside outside an ECHR Contracting State have no Convention "
@WildBoar
Mademoiselle from Armentières
Parlez - Vous
Inky pinky parlez - vous
I’ve left the original verse, changed the rest.
Could have been written for her!
Putain Tu is probably the correct tense,
but I like Putain Vous!!
Madam Markle from who knows where
Putain - vous
You didn’t have to know her long
To know the reason men go wrong
Winky twinkie putain - vous
She’s the hardest working girl in town
But she makes her living upside down
Winky kinky putain - vous
The cooties rambled through her hair
She whispered sweetly “C’est la guerre”
Winky stinky putain - vous
She’ll do it for wine, she’ll do it for rum
And sometimes for chocolates or chewing gum
Winky blinky putain - vous
C’est la guerre Megsie!! ����
August 6, 2020 at 11:37 AM
__
From what autumnal sky did you fall down to put us other (pleb) commenters to shame and distanced ignominy? Don't take me the wrong way. i pushed the like button many times.
"MoS might be able to argue it's a public interest case (not the same as the public being interested, which we are!). That is, it's important for the public to know for certain if a new member of the Royal is as corrupt/twisted/dangerous as she appears, when she apparently is both, IMO, blatant and flagrant in her behaviour."
Well that shipped has sailed and sunk for now. The MoS did assert the public interest angle but according to the Judge it was lacking compared to the need for confidentiality of the friends. Justice Warby does a good job (20 pages that is a whopper of a ruling) of going methodically through what each side asserts and his own analysis of how every case law cited has bearing (or not) on this matter. Justice Warby even says at one point the MoS did not challenge some of what the claimant asserts (how could they argue against the friend's assurance of confidentiality promised by People.
Clearly the facts and case law was on Meghan's side for the time being. If they are called as witnesses and will actually testify then it is my opinion then they will lose their confidentiality.
I have really been enjoying reading everyone's thoughts and speculation regarding case. It is my belief the 5 friends do not exist, only for the fact it is such an odd scenario when you stop to think about it. At very least if they do exist Meghan was completely involved in orchestrating their comments to People. I see no way out for her but to drop the case
It seems I remember reading MOS had countersuit but I now see no evidence of that. Didn't we previously discuss if Meg dropped case trial woukd still proceed due to countersuit? or maybe that scenario was merely offered up
Welcone Home Nutty!!!!
"It is my belief the 5 friends do not exist, only for the fact it is such an odd scenario when you stop to think about it."
If Meghan's 5 friends involved in this case then her lawyers committed a huge fraud on the court. They are named in the court documents but it is being kept confidential. If her attorneys committed such a fraud on the Court they will be found out and could potentially be disbarred. I don't think any lawyer would risk that for Meghan.
I think what happened is that Meghan prompted her friends to contact People on her behalf. She is lying and she probably even told the friends to ask People to be assured they would be anonymous. She is a shrewd cunning b*tch. She used her friends and put them in a very unpleasant position. Then she let Omid leak info which the Court found transparent as to her actions. However the MoS should not have taken info either to write sensational stories; they should have taken the high road, However both sides have been sullied in the Court's eyes so it is probably an even fight at this point IMO.
"If Meghan's 5 friends do not exist....
What do you make of Megsy's assertion that they are `innocent'? Does she mean they didn't say anything at all to `People' (in which case, who did?) or that they didn't break her copyright because they did it with her blessing? Seems to me that, either way, Megsy is implicated.
-----------------------
@Fairy Crocodile:
I think it's been said before, under UK law the recipient of a letter owns its physical substance (ie, they can keep it, give it away or destroy it because its their physical property) but the writer retains copyright in the wording because the choice of words is their intellectual property.
The correct procedure is for the owner of the letter to seek permission to publish from the writer, which may or may not be given?
All I know about copyright law in the US & Canada is that it's not the same as UK. Hence that note in so many books in the UK `For copyright reasons, this book is not to be sold in the USA/Canada'.
---------------
@XXXX
Eh??? (as used in England!)
Seeing someone's expression/demeanour is useful if the veracity of their statements is in doubt. In that case, the judge can impose reporting restrictions on the release of the name(s), as happens when a juvenile is up before a criminal court.
xxxxx is reciting the French ditty. Did you not sing it as a child? ;o)
Does her whining work with friends? Could it have been a sobbing call with "please do this for me?"
Thank you for input :)
@aquagirl LOL! "suits"
According to everything I have read, MM started the lawsuit with the hope (or expectation) that the MoS would offer her a big fat settlement and an apology, which would not only vindicate her (in her mind) but also make her several million dollars richer. She must have been shocked when the newspaper's response to her lawsuit was "See you in court". As the case progressed and things went south, several reliable blind gossip blogs reported that she now wanted to settle, but the Mos said absolutely not.
Here is my take on this as a lawyer: usually, when two parties negotiate an out of court settlement before trial, they agree that each party will pay their own costs, and I suspect this is the offer MM's lawyers made: we both walk away from this, each party paying their own costs and neither ends up paying any money to the other. However, my guess is that the MoS lawyers told MM's lawyers "Sure, we'll agree she can drop her case, but only if she pays our legal costs - as she would if she filed a notice of discontinuance".
And there's the rub - in the UK (unlike other jurisdictions such as Canada, where I live) a party's costs include the legal fees charged by that party's lawyers. Since the MoS is represented by a very high-powered (read: expensive) law firm, MM would find herself out of millions of dollars (their lawyers as well as her own). She already has to pay them a hefty amount when she refused to remove irrelevant parts of her lawsuit, and that was just for a preliminary motion.
Where is the money for all her lawsuits coming from? I hope and pray that it's not Prince Charles, because if it is, I will have lost all respect for him.
Copyright only covering some areas is about author contracts and not different copyright laws. The copyright notice covers the rights for that publication for a specific area, so an author/writer could use different publishers for different markets and for different formats.
@lucy
I will try again to post my response. WBBM I had spent a long time going through the Justice's ruling and my computer completely ate the long response. @lucy I tried to answer yours and same thing happened. I will try a little later.
"Before I go, just checked, Abigail Spencer is part Cherokee and was born in Florida, so who is the other North American beside Jessica who may be one of the five I wonder. Will look at that tomorrow".
Off Topic:
Many, many non-POC Americans claim to be "part Cherokee" coming from their mother or grandmother, of course. It's a very common practice here in the US. Why Cherokee? Perhaps because it's harder to confirm due to the vastness of the Cherokee Nation but the Cherokees were very sophisticated in the past (and still are!) who kept very good records. Senator Elizabeth Warren was reemed for doing just that (I support the Senator but that one almost did her career in). Her DNA confirmed a possibility because she is from Oklahoma where many of our people were sent during the Removal days.
If there is truth to the many claiming to be Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation would be the largest Native American tribe in the world. They are neck in neck with the The Navajo Nation as the largest in the US. Sadly the numbers are declining throughout the US and in Canada due to Covid-19 in many of our tribes.
I suppose blood quantum has something to do with those claiming to be Cherokee but not having official tribal status.
Sorry Pud, with all due respect, but felt I needed to address this. It's important to the narrative if one of the 5 is being addressed as "part Native".
If any are interested in further reading on the subject, this says it pretty well:
https://timeline.com/part-cherokee-elizabeth-warren-cf6be035967e
Sorry Nutties, for going off topic.
I have read the copyright law regarding the contents of letters and it sounds it is the owner of the letter who should seek permission from the author before making it public.
In that case it is Thomas who should have technically requested her consent to go to the media.
I find the case very interesting because she doesn't appear to have understood this; perhaps the law is so different in the States it never occurred to her she will for all intents and purposes be litigating with her own father.
I want to watch the actual court case. It promises interesting legal moments.
and
@XXXX
To clarify- `Mademoiselle...' was in a list of 1st WW songs I suggested parodying for our virtual show `O What a Lovely Wh*re!
Magatha picked up the idea and ran with it to splendid effect.
I first met the tune in country dancing - parents heard me singing the melody, thought I knew the words and were shocked.
I did learn a parody of Apres La Guerre Finis from Dad - he said it was the British response to the French/Belgians:
Madame, your beer's no bon,
neither is your vin blanc.
Your pommes de terre frites,
well they send me in fits.
Madame your beer's no bon.
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@Magatha - you've made my morning! Brilliant!
I was about to publish a somewhat bitchy article from Nz Herald today - from Oz. Still, there's a bit of shade at the end:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12353796
August 6, 2020 at 12:12 PM
I wondered about the parody origins of that song, thanks so much for that. ;o)
Thanks for that v. interesting information.
Btw, I don't think it's far off topic, in that I gather there's quite a lot of feeling about people unjustifiably claiming descent from backgrounds other than that of the dominant culture, especially if they can find advantage in it - reports of the Rachel Dolezal case, for example, made it to Britain.
After all, we are trying to understand someone whose concept of her own race is, shall we say, `fluid?'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308681/James-Hewitt-caught-secretly-selling-Diana-William-letters-highest-bidder-America.html
This newspaper has chosen not to publish the full letters out of respect to Prince William and Harry but has learned the letters were offered for sale to the Princes via their lawyer in November last year. (2014, I think).
The Mail on Sunday has chosen not to publish any of the letters from Prince William.
.....
Diana would later speak of her ‘utter betrayal’ by Hewitt, who she believed had burned the letters she sent him. She was horrified at the spectacle of him appearing on American television offering to sell the entire collection for millions.
Excerpts of some of Hewitt’s letters have been previously revealed.
It seems the MoS was very discreet and chose not to publish the full letters, however, they didn't have any qualms about publishing TM's letter from MM. 'Thomas said he kept her handwritten note private for months, and only revealed it to expose 'false' claims that the duchess had been trying to repair their relationship.'. Ok, different circumstances but in one case, there is discretion and respect and in the other, they don't care. Maybe they knew this woild generate clicks and they felt that the public was seeing MM for what she was.
I find it interesting how the paper reacted in both cases, although circumstances were different. Do tell me if I'm talking out of my backside!
"What do you make of Megsy's assertion that they are `innocent'? Does she mean they didn't say anything at all to `People' (in which case, who did?) or that they didn't break her copyright because they did it with her blessing? Seems to me that, either way, Megsy is implicated."
Meghan's attorneys clearly assert to the Court that the 5 friends did in fact speak to People Mag. I think simply that Meghan is inferring that her friends are innocent of wrongdoing. In her papers she repeatedly claims they were trying to help her and they were concerned for her.
Quote from ruling:
"She says that whilst the People Article was “based on interviews given by five unnamed
friends of the claimant” she “did not know that a number of her friends agreed to give
an interview about her” but only “later discovered” that “some of her close circle of
friends became extremely concerned” about media publicity and its impact on her, as a
result of which “one of her closest friends decided that they should help by arranging
to give anonymous interviews to this American magazine … in which they might
explain what the claimant was truly like.”
However Meghan states that only 1 (Friend A) of the 5 friends used the letter from her father and it was only in passing and the brief summary resulting was wrong.
Quote from the ruling:
"She maintains, further, that the reference to the Letter was in any event only a “brief and passing reference” made by one of the friends, with no detail, and that the summary of
the Letter that was provided was “completely wrong”. She relies on that last point as
bolstering her case that she did not authorise any revelation of, or about, the Letter.
The Court even quotes Omid Scobie using the word "innocent" as follows:
" At 9:30am, a copyof the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a closesource”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the
pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the
witness statement that I have quoted above."
I think Scobie is just using the word "innocent" to describe the friends of having done nothing wrong.
Over and over in the ruling Meghan/Claimant asserts that her 5 friends spoke with People Magazine. As I read the ruling I see nothing of about the friends having anything to do with copyright issues. The copyright issue has to do with the MoS use of the letter IMO Someone correct me if you think I'm on this point.
Further, as to what you say about Meghan being implicated in all of this...I find it disingenuous to think Meghan wasn't behind her 5 friends speaking with People. I think she most certainly shared the letter with at least 1 friend. It also seems very likely she told them to speak on the condition of anonymity precisely so they could not be revealed and everything kept quite secret. Unless the already named friends (revealed in the court papers filed) are forced to disclose her involvement via deposition or trial we may never know the extent of Meghan's machinations (and that is assuming her friends tell the truth).
@Pink Peony re Cherokee people,
Thanks for that v. interesting information.
Btw, I don't think it's far off topic, in that I gather there's quite a lot of feeling about people unjustifiably claiming descent from backgrounds other than that of the dominant culture, especially if they can find advantage in it - reports of the Rachel Dolezal case, for example, made it to Britain. After all, we are trying to understand someone whose concept of her own race is, shall we say, `fluid?'.
@WBBM,
Thanks :) Great point about Rachel Dolezal. Lots of culture vultures out there.
NOW they want to be us. Back then, uh no...lol...smh.
My day awaits me. Have an awesome day Nutties! :)
John Wyndham wrote `The Kraken Wakes' a sci-fi novel on the premise that the beasts melted the polar ice so that had more sea to swim in. Like his other novels, read today, they seem to be prophetic whereas in the 1950s they seemed fantasy.
I'm still haunted by his image of people rowing along Oxford St, London W1.
Anywho, it says Harry cooked her a three course meal with Doria's help. Does anybody here truly believe Harry knows how to cook (with or without Doria's help)? Or that he would actually do manual labor like that when he did not have to?
A chocolate birthday cake with balloons. Sounds store bought to me. Like at your local grocery store bakery kind of cake.
Doria so generously agreed to watch Archie that evening so they could have "couple time" (eerily reminiscent of "feed time", unusal language to say the least). Ummmmm if Doria isn't there to be the "nanny" , why is she living there? She's got a house (paid for) and a partner less than 10-15 km away. So why is she there if not to be nanny.
LA is in lockdown but you could still have a couple of friends over. Oprah, Ellen, EJ, Adele, or ????? But.....no one...hmmm
I take your point. I suppose the best we can do now is sit back and wait to see what's revealed during the trial.
It sounds like she is going to interview someone for the panel, and that she asked about being there, rather than being invited.
"cateyes I completely agree with what you have said but could Meg have lied to her lawyers? What benefit would the friends even receive in contacting People on her behalf , what is in it for them? How would that conversation even go from Meg's end? Maybe at the time JM would have said "yeah sure" or maybe Meg is closer to the other 4 than I claim to believe. It is just really odd it is FIVE friends. 2 maybe but 5 all agreeing to this? Why? They spoke anonymously so they didn't even do it for faux publicity.
Does her whining work with friends? Could it have been a sobbing call with "please do this for me?"
Well of course, Meghan could have lied but I rather doubt it as the 5 friends were identified confidentially in the proceedings to date and based on some of the friends filing supporting information, her attorneys would have proof. For the possible 3 that did not supply written documentation, I am sure Meghan's law firm would have contacted the individuals and ascertained the veracity of their involvement. This is too big of a case to leave anything to chance or unsubstantiated.
As to what is it to have done such a thing? Well it would appear first and foremost they are loyal friends at the time they spoke to People, and I could see they were trying to help Meghan. It was orchestrated too and the ruling says as much laying the responsibility on the shoulders of Friend B.
Quote from Ct ruling as follows:
"It was Friend B who organised the interviews. She was concerned at the way the media were treating and portraying the claimant. Friend B spoke to the editor, Jess Cagle, to ask what she could do to help the claimant. He “offered up” having her inner circle of friends talk about the claimant anonymously. They all agreed to speak on the basis their identities would not be revealed, and they would not have done it otherwise."
And this:
"Friend B makes clear she wishes the confidentiality that was promised to be respected. She expresses concern on her own behalf and that of the other four, that if their identities are revealed they will suffer media intrusion. Reference is made to the children of the five, and the potential impact on them of media publicity about their parents."
The ruling also includes that the 5 friends Did Not want publicity for themselves and was afraid of that possibility. So if they are to be believed they did not do it for that reason. In fact Friend B gives the court 45 paragraphs asserting her involvement in past media articles and the context in which they happened; gee sounds like the friend "doth protest too much: eh?
"cateyes I completely agree with what you have said but could Meg have lied to her lawyers? What benefit would the friends even receive in contacting People on her behalf , what is in it for them? How would that conversation even go from Meg's end? Maybe at the time JM would have said "yeah sure" or maybe Meg is closer to the other 4 than I claim to believe. It is just really odd it is FIVE friends. 2 maybe but 5 all agreeing to this? Why? They spoke anonymously so they didn't even do it for faux publicity.
Does her whining work with friends? Could it have been a sobbing call with "please do this for me?"
Well of course, Meghan could have lied but I rather doubt it as the 5 friends were identified confidentially in the proceedings to date and based on some of the friends filing supporting information, her attorneys would have proof. For the possible 3 that did not supply written documentation, I am sure Meghan's law firm would have contacted the individuals and ascertained the veracity of their involvement. This is too big of a case to leave anything to chance or unsubstantiated.
As to what is it to have done such a thing? Well it would appear first and foremost they are loyal friends at the time they spoke to People, and I could see they were trying to help Meghan. It was orchestrated too and the ruling says as much laying the responsibility on the shoulders of Friend B.
Quote from Ct ruling as follows:
"It was Friend B who organised the interviews. She was concerned at the way the media were treating and portraying the claimant. Friend B spoke to the editor, Jess Cagle, to ask what she could do to help the claimant. He “offered up” having her inner circle of friends talk about the claimant anonymously. They all agreed to speak on the basis their identities would not be revealed, and they would not have done it otherwise."
And this:
"Friend B makes clear she wishes the confidentiality that was promised to be respected. She expresses concern on her own behalf and that of the other four, that if their identities are revealed they will suffer media intrusion. Reference is made to the children of the five, and the potential impact on them of media publicity about their parents."
The ruling also includes that the 5 friends Did Not want publicity for themselves and was afraid of that possibility. So if they are to be believed they did not do it for that reason. In fact Friend B gives the court 45 paragraphs asserting her involvement in past media articles and the context in which they happened; gee sounds like the friend "doth protest too much: eh?
Part 2
What would the conversation that Megsy could have said...oh the sky is the limit on that one! I think she would have cried and pushed the 'friendship' aspect of their relationship and guilted them maybe into doing something. Certainly they thought saying something with their identities being promised confidential probably was a large factor in them speaking.
I think Meg pressured Friend B to organize this despite her disavowal of making her friends talk. Couldn't have Meg said to friend B "Oh I so badly need someone to talk to People and get my side of the story out". This would not be Meg telling Friend B to do it, just that she wished someone did. Thus plausible deniability on Meg's part. Megsy is a sly liar, and the whole episode smacks of Meghan-style handiwork of skirting around an issue and with attorneys as her mouthpiece and luckily the law on her side she succeeded. She made have won a battle but will she win the war?
In any event, I'm still convinced this 'confidentiality' issue of the friends is just an ancillary aspect of the case and the meat of the case has to do with the MoS potential copyright infringement, data Protection and invasion of Meghan's privacy. If Justice Warby thought it was a main element then I don't think he would have stated so clearly his ruling was temporary and subject to being changed down the road if facts or circumstances warrant it. It goes without saying, it is ANL as the defendant, not People and not her friends actions. I am quite surprised she did not chose to sue her father, but that indeed would make an already heartless Meghan even more despicable in the eyes of the public (but it was Mr. Markle's action which set off this incident i]on which she is suing). However, my sympathies are with Thomas 110%.
She just got back--yesterday I think?--so I'm sure she's working on a new post.
On the other hand, I think it’s irrelevant if she instigated those friends to go public with the story or not. We know she did, of course, but for the lawsuit I don’t think it’s important. It is a fact that she talked to someone about the letter she send to her father and this someone spread the information worldwide by publicizing it to a gossip magazine. The cat was out of the bag (I hope that is the correct expression). There were only two people involved in the written communication - she and her father - and the first publicity was traced back to her and that is all that matter, at least in my point of view. If it wasn’t intentional that there’s a latin expression for that. Culpa in eligendo. She is responsible for her poor choice of confident.
" I am quite surprised she did not chose to sue her father, but that indeed would make an already heartless Meghan even more despicable in the eyes of the public..."
I doubt it was only not wanting to be perceived as heartless stopping her. Thomas has no money. Nothing to gain by suing him. And no hope even if she won that he could even pay her legal bills.
Yes I am sure that you are right. To sue her father would have caused her legal bills to be doubled and for no potential return. Good catch!
"Many, many non-POC Americans claim to be "part Cherokee" coming from their mother or grandmother, of course. It's a very common practice here in the US."
Same thing happened in my family, some possible female relative at least 4 generations back "might have been Cherokee" (live in Texas near Oklahoma). I wish it was true but sadly have no way of knowing due to lack of genealogy records on that branch of my family.
I have appreciated your postings regarding Native Americans!
Con't, *her explaination is very good. I didn't order the book but her details in writing are pretty on point
On the other hand, I think it’s irrelevant if she instigated those friends to go public with the story or not.'
__________________________
On the contrary, if she asked/coerced/bribed her friends to share the letter with People magazine (and says she knew nothing about it), I think it is extremely relevant. It shows how dishonest, deceitful and sly she is. It shows she cannot be trusted to tell the truth and if she did put her friends up to it, I don't think this will go down well with Mr Justice Warby. He is one of eight new appointments to the Court of Appeal which were announced on 31 July 2020 and is extremely experienced in defamation and privacy.
The very known 'Unknown' said:
"Gosh, why is it I am not surprised at the insistence your summary and viewpoints on this case are the only valuable ones?"
Again putting words in other people's mouthsm this time mine. I have never even intimated this at all. You are trying to bait me again. like you unpleasantly did.
"By the way, I've noticed some of your assessment of the judge's findings has changed since you read other poster's more accurate interpretations.
You started out saying the following:
"In the end the justice was clearly sympathetic to the 5 friends situation and I believe his order will remain in place henceforth". at August 6, 2020 at 2:51 AM
And then after you read how others here more adequately interpreted his decision on revealing the names, you made this statement:
"Justice Warby can change at some point in time if facts arise to make it necessary to reveal the names of the 5 friends". at August 6, 2020 at 6:22 AM:
No I did no such thing, The first statement (2:51pm) says my opinion the second statement (6:22pm) is what the justice can do in the future. So there is no contradiction at all.
"Kindly allow the rest of us our opinions without any strident bleatings and beatings,"
Oh your own words say all that one needs to know about the quality of your opinions.
Leave me alone, like I asked you the other night when you picked a fight. I'm not responding to you anymore today.
That’s because she only told her friends part of the truth, and they ran to People (why?? A pay day?? Who does this?!)
So now, she’s on court record throwing her friends under the bus. Lol.
Further, does this mean Thomas was right to defend himself from her ‘friends’ false record. Which she is also agreeing was false, giving him
The ammunition to defend himself against false allegations.
What exactly can her case hang onto? She’s agreeing with Thomas’ actions now.
This is such a shit show lol and I’m here for it!
I've got a question.... Did I read earlier today that Meglomania has invited herself to speak at Gender and Diversity Virtual Summit ?She's asked to interview the founder. When will someone say NO to her.
"Did I read earlier today that Meglomania has invited herself to speak at Gender and Diversity Virtual Summit ?She's asked to interview the founder. When will someone say NO to her."
Yes, she is doing that interview. I'm sure it will focus not on the purported interviewee but on Meghan.
Maybe people have said no. We only hear when they said yes.
Thank you. You are so right that it will be all about her. Also we may never know if anyone has said NO !!!
Quote from Ct ruling as follows:
"It was Friend B who organised the interviews. She was concerned at the way the media were treating and portraying the claimant. Friend B spoke to the editor, Jess Cagle, to ask what she could do to help the claimant. He “offered up” having her inner circle of friends talk about the claimant anonymously. They all agreed to speak on the basis their identities would not be revealed, and they would not have done it otherwise."
I was under the impression the scenario was entirely random, as in the 5 friends randomly and independent of eachother phoned up People to "set the record straight"
I still believe it to be a bunch of baloney (i.e. Meg totally orchestrated it)but now I am able to view from different perspective, thank you again
Pink Peony, Thank you for explaining the Cherokee Nation details. A lot of people don't understand what you explained and I'm very glad you spoke up. There are a lot of misconceptions, too, such as the Trail of Tears. People think the Native Americans were crying as they walked the trail, but no, it was the white people who were crying and very sad with deep empathy and respect for them.
You're so welcome. Yes, as was the case during abolition days, pre civil war, there were many non Natives who wholeheartedly supported the Native causes with their time, funding, influence, etc. Those were deeply dark days for many tribes. Thanks for your kind words.
@CatEyes,
Glad you enjoy my posts! I enjoy your sense of humor:)
We could shout "release the Kraken" while uncorking.
I wish I had thought of it, but it was another clever Nuttier who coined the phrase apropos la Markle. TBH, I'm not even sure who...perhaps another could give (or take) credit?
Yes, thank you for the Trail of Tears info. Oddly, it makes me happy that enough people had compassion for the displaced that it became part of the name. One of the horrors we must never forget.
As a girl, I had a horse, and one of the events we were all mad to join (when our silly silly parents finally understood, or we were old enough to go on our own) was the Trail of Tears
commemorative ride, where small groups of riders would choose a portion of the Trail to ride and camp and remember.
I see there is an annual motorcycle event now. Equally meaningful now, I'm sure.
I was in Cherokee NC a while back and the tribe there does a great job of presenting the culture, and the Trail of Tears. Its very moving.
Back OT now.
Not everyone who claims Native ancestry is lying. If a European man came over here as a single man and left for the mountains, he very likely married and had children with a Native woman, or perhaps a free woman of color. Not all Native people stayed together. I think there was a fair amount of inter marrying in the early to mid 1800s in the Appalachian area down in to the South.
My Mingo ancestors lived quite well with the European settlers for a long time... until of course they didn't. (See Chief Logan) But there was plenty of intermarrying, and the Mingo didn't keep records. My Eastern Band Cherokee ancestors adopted a white man to buy up property for them.
I think most Americans are mutts, one way or other, if they have been here any amount of time, LOL!
As usual you delete my post objecting to your favorite poster 'Unknown' who disrupts this blog by her rabid posts trying to spoil a fight. She mentions your luvy 'Elle' who you rabidly supported in the past no matter how obnoxious she was toward me. I know you
expressed in your statements the special relationship by letting Elle dominate the blog and bully posters especially me. You also favor and are so slavishly devoted to 'Unknown' who you act like she's the second coming of Elle.
You are so transparaent in eliminating my posts which proves I hit the nail on the head about you and your motivations.
Thomas Markle sat on the letter for 5 months or so without mentioning it to anyone. Obviously MM got annoyed as she had taken hours to write it in her faux fancy handwriting as she knew (or hoped) her Father would go to the press with it and got frustrated when he didn't so got her friends involved with leaking it to The People magazine. Thomas Markle gave the letter, without any payment for it, to the MoS as he wanted to put the record straight that he had been vilified by these friends and The People only printed some paragraphs from the letter which made him look bad in the eyes of the world. He wanted the whole letter published to make people see that what MM was saying was the opposite of what she'd written in the letter and he was very upset about it.
MoS are also saying that if the friends are kept anonymous during the trial then anyone in the media world can print their names after the court case but the MoS cannot.
How do I reply to a printed comment?