"Portrait of a broken man," writes Twitter hunk Alexander Cortes above an image of Prince Harry. "Look how dead his eyes are."
Almost a hundred of Cortes' 94,000 followers responded.
"Bet the only time he feels alive is when he Googles how to get a divorce without losing the family fortune," one says.
Writes another: "Take her out for a drink, they said. Meet new people, they said. What could go wrong, they said. EVERYTHING COULD GO F****** sideways, thanks b*******....ps please send help."
"This guy gave up everything - family, friends, etc. because he chose probably one of the worst women on the planet," says a third commenter. "Everyone from Queen to commoner was begging him not to do it - but he decided being woke was worth it....now look at him...damn shame."
"When his marriage collapses I'm sure he's gonna turn further right than Napoleon," was the top comment.
Actual image vs PR image
So...this is Prince Harry's actual image. This what people think about him, real people outside the media bubble.
Inside that bubble, he and Meghan and their PR people continue to work hard on what they think is his image, or their image, although no one seems to think much about Meghan at all these days.
Harry offers us a video to celebrate 150 years of the English rugby team, and and the supposedly leaked information spotted on the top of a bus with James Corden, who like all late night hosts is suffering from a ratings depression after the departure of Donald Trump. (I'm guessing that the person who "spotted them" works for one of their publicists.) Is it a skit for Cordon's show? Something for Harry's Netflix special? Does anyone care?
Then the Sussexes continue their woke pose at a Zoom poetry class for Black History month, even though the army of the woke hasn't shown any particular interest in Harry.
(He and Meghan did have a meeting with California governor Gavin Newsom, no doubt to pitch Meghan as a possible replacement for Kamala Harris in the Senate. She wasn't chosen - if he were to have chosen a Black woman, San Francisco mayor London Breed would have been first in line - and Newsom is very close to being recalled at the moment, so he no doubt has other things on his mind.)
And there's the evergreen Royal conflict story, in which it is disclosed that Harry will be returning to the UK this summer without Meghan for the Trooping of the Color. Is it because the entire Royal family and much of the UK dislikes her? No, it's just to "keep Archie safe" from COVID. Sure.
I'm still not entirely convinced that Archie exists and, if he does, that he is living with the Sussexes.
Comments
This type of verdict vis a vis privacy is how the European royals and politicians win their privacy cases when news outlets print details of their abhorrent private behaviour.
Meghan Markle wins privacy and copyright case against Mail on Sunday and MailOnline over letter to father WITHOUT a trial. Publisher considers appeal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9250667/Meghan-Markle-wins-privacy-copyright-case-against-Mail-Sunday-letter-father.html
"....... in the meantime she'll see the verdict as a victory. As long as she doesn't gloat now..."
Too late. She's already gloating. Have you seen her victory statement?
https://the-cat-with-the-emerald-tiara.tumblr.com/image/642841830452527104
her privacy is always HER privacy as per section 8 of the human rights code.
This type of verdict vis a vis privacy is how the European royals and politicians win their privacy cases when news outlets print details of their abhorrent private behaviour.
*
Privacy is privacy regardless of who a person is. In the US, as you know, we have strict privacy laws. Clearly so does the UK. Detested or loved, a member of the modern BRF will win, no matter what. Any news lately on Andrew and his collaboration with Epstein? All I hear are crickets...pragmatically speaking of course, as my posts from today indicate.
I refuse to allow myself to live in an echo chamber environment, therefore I can see it from the logical side, though my human tendency to be fascinated with a car wreck urges me to jump on the bandwagon... even if it is heading for a cliff. I have learned to refrain from doing so.
That is against the law.
It was Maneki who said "as long as she's not gloating".
Yes I have. It's puke worthy as usual but then is so is a hell of a lot of crap we face everyday IRL.
I have detached myself from the drama Narcs love to inflict on others. To them, it's a blood sport. So, as my mom use to say "consider the source".
'I'm sure they (MoS/ANL) have ways to destroy Meg's image in the press should they wish to.
*
Nah. She's done a bang up job of it herself. She is detested by far to many decent people.
"The Court finds for the claimant on infringement. … It is undeniable that they reproduced a substantial part in qualitative terms, and in the sense that they reproduced a substantial part of “that which is the author’s own intellectual creation”
Yet Chris Ship: ""The Court is persuaded, however, that there should be a trial limited to issues relating to the ownership of copyright"
Is there a substantial legal difference between ownership of an intellectual creation and the holding ownership of copyright?
What if, hypothetically of course, the parts that were published were the intellectual creation of some of the Palace4?
Has she jumped the gun?
to override English privacy law, to win this case. Or 50% win. This will make it more interesting for me, a pro-Brexit American.
My opinion of Mr. Justice Warby as a jurist has just been torpedoed. Makes me wonder whether he ever met Meg in a non-legal capacity during his recreational time . . or does he just want to stick it to Fleet Street in general?
Knowing what we do about her laborious 'calligraphy' presentation and that she allowed her 'friends' to publish excerpts of this 'private' document in People Magazine, her claim to privacy is absolutely ludicrous. Since the same portions of this disputed document have appeared in a publication even more tabloid than Mail on Sunday, it seems to me that her 'expectation of privacy' claim would be far easier to disprove than her claim to copyright.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, though, and perhaps the court knows that she WILL be held to account for the copyright claim. We aren't privy to everything which has been released in discovery.
I find myself thinking that because the "Palace 5" or "royals" in general are involved, maybe the outcome was different than what it would've been if it was just an ordinary citizen.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hrh-the-duchess-of-sussex-v-associated-newspapers-ltd/
As Lavender Lady said, Meg has done a good job of that herself. All I meant was if the MoS is sitting on some info on Meg that's been kept hidden, they should publish it. She tries to be some influencer and people have a right to know what she is.
Sounds like Warby kicked the ball down the court and doesn’t want to upset the RF. His boss is the Queen and just promoted him in the middle of all of this. He refuses to question the ownership of the copyright. Why? So we can all just take credit for things that aren’t ours? Why send it to so many people.
All this says to me is to avoid Meghan, she will sue you on technicalities. Who wants to do biz with that??
"I sure hope we get to find out if Megsy's lawyers cited section 8 of the EU human rights code
to override English privacy law, to win this case. Or 50% win. This will make it more interesting for me, a pro-Brexit American."
We already know this. It was the law they used to argue for the SJ.
They argued that Judge should read it in absolute terms ie no matter what evidence the defence presented, Meghan's human rights trumps all in absolute terms.
Reading the SJ posted online, the Judge acknowledges and indeed shoots down the reasons Meghan's lawyers gave for outing the letter and or releasing any private information, BUT his reasoning for awarding the SJ to Meghan reads as an absolute application of section 8, Human Rights code.
Thomas did give this story to a daily mail journalist in LA. In the US, if you give a letter to someone they own that entire letter. Hence why you see screenshots constantly (armie hammer, recently) and no one can sue over it.
Meghan brought the case in the U.K. because there was nothing she could do in the US. She would have sued in the US if she could have, guaranteed- our judgments for damages are huge.
Why can her lawyers pick and chose which law applies? In the us, the law is the law. It’s not like you can cherry pick.
"He refuses to question the ownership of the copyright. Why? So we can all just take credit for things..."
But apparently he didn't make a decision on copyright ownership. That's what he says needs to go to trial. I realize the ownership claim & the privacy claim are intertwined. But it makes no sense to me from a logical perspective the way he separated them.
I told my husband and he said, “Look, that doesn’t even make remote sense- improbable. He was clearly paid off, or threatened over losing his job.’
I think he’s right. Warby’s writing has the whole ‘look the other way.’ Where did he get the statistics for improbable? He should be able to articulate the percentage of improbability their argument is.
"@Acquitaine said,
her privacy is always HER privacy as per section 8 of the human rights code.
This type of verdict vis a vis privacy is how the European royals and politicians win their privacy cases when news outlets print details of their abhorrent private behaviour.
*
Privacy is privacy regardless of who a person is. In the US, as you know, we have strict privacy laws."
My point was that the European establishment has used this law ( section 8, Human Rights code) to sue news outlets that dare publish their abhorrent behaviour even when it's criminal. Eg French President Francois Holland papped cheating on his official spouse, IMF guy, Dominic Strauss- Khan being prosecuted in America for attempted rape etc. In the later case, the European media admitted they knew he was a serial rapist, but couldn't publish due to that law - the only way they could report on it was by giving an editorialised opinion on US media outlets reporting on the case.
When Meghan's lawyers used it as the legal framework for their SJ argument, it was revealed that this was the first time in UK that it had been tested in a UK court and therefore a test case. They asked that the Judge apply it in absolute terms. Judge Warby just read it in absolute terms which means that no matter the veracity of the ANL arguments, section 8, Human Rights code voids them completely and absolutely no matter how the Judge justifies his response.
It sets a precedent which protects people from media.
Meg's statement says: But for today, with this comprehensive win on both privacy and copyright, we have all won.
Has she jumped the gun?
*
She states they won the copyright portion of the case.
Probably more grandiose, over the top statements power hungry sensationalists use when trying to gain even more wealth, power, notoriety. L Ron Hubbard used this same tactic and now he's king of Scientology. Hell, Hitler used that tactic...
Yeah, she would use that tactic to the hilt.
Agreed.
.
Did she give them permission to get it published in People?
If so, why? It may not have been copyright problems but surely flies in the face of her `privacy' claim?
If not, why didn't she sue them?
Or, are they too useful to fall out with?
Or, aren't they rich enough? (Probably why her father hasn't been kidnapped in Mexico-there's no guarantee of her paying a ransom, as the cynics have remarked)
Or, was it OK because she was sure of a sympathetic audience in the US but didn't want us to know about it?
Yeah I got your point. I always do.
"Aquataine,
Why can her lawyers pick and chose which law applies? In the us, the law is the law. It’s not like you can cherry pick."
I don't think they can. She kept changing lawyers who in-turn advanced different laws to invoke and kept losing the case every time they went to court.
She finally got a set of lawyers who picked the right law, one that had never been used before in a UK court and asked for an absolute application of it to her claims.
It's the judge who has applied it to one claim, but not the other.
How does this stack up with regard to the 5 friends releasing this?
Did she give them permission to get it published in People?
If so, why? It may not have been copyright problems but surely flies in the face of her `privacy' claim?
If not, why didn't she sue them?
Or, are they too useful to fall out with?
Or, aren't they rich enough? (Probably why her father hasn't been kidnapped in Mexico-there's no guarantee of her paying a ransom, as the cynics have remarked)
Or, was it OK because she was sure of a sympathetic audience in the US but didn't want us to know about it?
*
Great questions. I feel it will be part 2 of the shit show. A trial *should* bring out the rats. But she's "Royal" so I say 'should' with tongue in cheek.
The reasons are that the trial would further invade her privacy.
Now he’s arguing semantics. Someone’s the British system is amazing to me. Meghan is American. We do not, for the most part in most states, have an expectation of privacy when it comes to passing a letter on. It’s just all so silly from my POV.
Will she concede on the copyright to avoid a trial? She will hate to do so, but she will have to concede that copyright belongs to the Crown then and thus she can stem the tide of more dirty laundry being aired about her.
She got away with defying a court order to hand over her communications, twice. She got away with telling a blatant lie about co-operating with Scobie. She got away with making up some story to delay a trial and keeping it a secret. She got away with contempt for her father. Not evn a reprimand? The spoilt, entitled rich people won today!
Her victory speech is quite disgusting.
Privacy: It is your privacy and thus you have the right to infringe on it.
Misuse of data: a misuse of the law in my opinion. The law is to protect ordinary people from government infringement, but the luvvies have claimed it as their own today.
Human rights: The luvvies won again!
The luvvies forget or do not know history ...!
"For me and so many others, it's real life, real relationships and very real sadness."
Cry me a river! Surely this applies to her father?
@jessica said...
"Why can her lawyers pick and chose which law applies? In the us, the law is the law. It’s not like you can cherry pick."
I've just realised that i didn't answer your question.
We have UK laws and we have ECHR laws. ECEJ laws trump our UK laws. To a large extent we've incorporated them or codified them, but some lawyers don't always reach for the ECEJ laws if they can win on UK laws.
It speaks to weakness of her case if her lawyers resorted to untested ECEJ law to make their arguments moreover one that made it impossible for Judge to rule differently.
I suspect the copyright claim will bring out all the issues we all want answered, Judge included, so he's putting it to a trial because there is enough doubt to put it outside the ECEJ law.
Even if ANL lose that case, you can be sure they are going to drag her through the mud after losing the privacy claim.
Good point about black privilege. The next time any Woke organisation, such as the National Trust, expects me to fill in an ethnicity form I'll apply the `one drop rule'. Anything to mess up the figures they use to show their audience is snow white & they are justified in their woke policies. Two can play at that game.
Well, this ruling has the Queen’s shoe print all over it. She stepped in before any secrets of the Royal family could be divulged, as she did with the butler stealing Diana’s belongings after her death.
*
I had the same thought. The Monarch has stepped in on many cases in history to silence those attempting to shed light on the inner dealings of their courts.
Can't say I blame them. Mystery is what keeps the ball rolling.
Since they can't chop their heads off physically anymore, they can and will, do it symbolically.
Meghan is American. We do not, for the most part in most states, have an expectation of privacy when it comes to passing a letter on. It’s just all so silly from my POV.
*
I would use a letter to squash an ex in a family/divorce court if I had too. It would be useful if I wrote it and he published it.
Sorry I just realized I consistently spell your username wrong!! :) oops.
Your knowledge is such a help!!! Thank you for providing it! So, if I’m understanding correctly he made the SJ on privacy, but not on ownership of copyright? Only use of copyright? And he’s said the trial can go ahead over ‘ownership of copyright’? A legal commenter says it’s almost a slam dunk in favor of Meghan today, and that the smaller portions of copyright will be settled with a deal. Yeah, right! Why would ANL do that?
Fascinating her case was terrible and she managed to find lawyers who would win on European grounds. I give her credit for that- her laser focus really seems to help her sometimes! Almost in an autistic way, by barring all other ideas and facts. If it’s not a learning/ focus issue, I commend that sort of bravado as it’s very very American. Gung-ho ‘I’m right, you’re wrong and I will find how in the nick of time!’ Tungsten. Maybe I’m giving her more credit than a lowly lawyer who came up with the plan.
If this case does not go to trial in any shape or form, it doesn’t help Meghan’s popularity. We want to see the mess! She has zero audience for anything else. Also, why did she take credit for a win if it hasn’t been sorted yet?
Yes, copyright was breached.
No, it is not clear whose copyright.
If it goes to trial (because Meghan insists she owns copyright), the statements and testimony of the 'Palace Four' will be used as evidence.
If it is decided at trial that copyright belongs to the Crown, my guess is that the Crown will withdraw.
If Meghan withdraws, to stop more dirty laundry being aired, she will have to trust that granny will make sure the testimony of the 'Palace Four' and their communications with her never see the light of day, and she cannot use the letter without permission from the Crown.
@jessica P.S.
What I would not do is take my elderly, ailing dad to court. Especially since he funded my very existence. I think that's what I detest about her the most. Her own dad...
Well she now has Harry and Fam to fund her existence and she will use any means she can manipulate to continue holding that bag. Sad.
The defense argues that Jason Knauf, Harry and Meghan’s former communications director, was the letter’s co-author. The judge said that argument “cannot be described as convincing, and seems improbable,” but should still be decided at a trial.”
https://apnews.com/article/meghan-markle-privacy-lawsuit-fa0f447e403e0df077ea60af7ba0f071
Limited trial over a minor point
Thanks for the clarification re: copyright.
But what is the difference between the letter being M's "own intellectual creation” which Warby stated it was re: infringement and M holding copyright? Can a letter that she doesn't hold copyright to (and hypothetically never did) be M's own creation? Or is the need for a trial on ownership merely a matter of deciding how and to whom damages for the infringement would be awarded?
That said, I enjoy reading Ben Smallbrook’s perspective on Quora, here’s his take:
I don’t want to say, “I told you so,” …but I told you so!
On January 19th I wrote this:
In the unlikely event that I was put in Justice Warby’s position today, and having been honoured by Her Majesty the Queen with a knighthood, I admit it would have a bearing on my judgement. I would be only half-listening to the case put before me because my mind would already be made up. I would be thinking of the bottle of claret I’d be drinking when I arrive home tonight.
I would be aware that the Queen doesn’t want her family suffering more embarrassment in a media-frenzied court case which could see Meghan Markle screaming across the court room at Thomas, her father.
I would value my knighthood more than anything. It commands respect from others, it opens doors, and more importantly, it also gives me the best table in London’s restaurants. I wouldn’t put all of this at risk by upsetting Her Majesty, which is why I would NEVER rule against a member of the Royal Family, whatever the circumstances.
Of course, because I couldn’t be impartial, I could never be a judge. I would put my own selfish interests first. If Her Majesty made it clear to me that she wanted to protect her family’s reputation, that would be good enough for me.
I have always said the Queen wouldn’t allow this trial to become a circus. People should remember, this case wasn’t presented to a court, but to the Royal Courts of Justice. Her Majesty is revered. She is the big boss, and always will be.
Today, Justice Warby granted Meghan Markle "summary judgment" in her claim for misuse of private information against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. It means that part of the case is resolved without a trial.
There will be a further hearing in March to decide "the next steps" in the legal action.
Don’t hold your breath.
I rest my case, My’lud!
(Ps, don’t sue me Benjamin!!! 😂)
Good point about black privilege
*
Let me add: Black and Royal privilege (more the latter me thinks, but def a spattering of both).
Meghan is a cancer that has invaded the body of an already less-than-robust monarchy. She will kill it unless they cut her and Harry, who enables her, off like a cancerous limb.
Can you imagine the utter gloating going on in Montecito? Unbelievable that she won that judgement. I'm nearly speechless.
I wonder a lot of things of what happened with this. If there was no case, it would've been thrown out sooner. Why now?
and speaking of now - i'm sure we are going to see M popping up all over the place. Doing her victory dance.
There seems to be some confusion online about today’s outcome. The ruling was an all-out win on copyright AND privacy for DOS. The next hearing is to simply determine damages and the only trial that could happen would be if someone claims they’re entitled to a portion of damages.
11:02 AM · Feb 11, 2021
As for Meghan, I just don’t know anymore. Queen stepped in, human rights laws. Ok. So she and Harry are going to continue using their aroyal status and Uk associations for everything, I’m doubting the Queen will take any titles or patronage’s. It will look like a family failure. I don’t agree with it, but they are run like a mafia it looks like, and the family has power.
I read several statements from various journalists, talking heads, on SM sites etc. where it was stated she won only *some* copyright issues not all of them. Thus, a trial... perhaps.
I made sure to check before I posted.
Maybe we are all confused. It's the Meghan effect. Ugh...
Can we setup a Go Fund Me page to pay for her to go on Elon Musk's rocket trip? There would also be another billionaire on the trip around the world.
"Duchess of Sussex wins summary judgment on the claim for misuse of private information, and on the other issues in the copyright claim.
Judge says there there should be a trial limited to issues relating to
the ownership of copyright".
9:04 AM · Feb 11, 2021·Tweetbot for Mac
Looks like only hope is trial on ownership of the letter.
*
Thanks for the clarity!
Well,she certainly is full of 💩💩💩💩💩
Puds, you are correct. His wedding suit and shoes were made in the UK in FF. Canada makes no sense in the timeline.
Give me a couple of minutes, I'll find the page.
page 198, the last paragraph
"His bespoke suit and custom shoes were waiting at the Oliver Brown tailors in Chelsea, as was the military veteran Harry had asked to help accompany Meghan's father for his journey from London to Windsor."
I can offer a concrete example from book publishing:
You are employed by a publisher and for various reasons, you write all or part of a book while employed in-house at that publisher. (Author hands in rubbish or an MS with huge chunks/chapters missing so, because of deadlines for educational books, in-house staff fix it ... to the extent of researching and writing the missing bits or even the entire book in extreme cases.) The publisher owns copyright (they contracted the author to write the book according to curriculum requirements). Technically, it is your creative work, but you do not own copyright for the work ... the publisher does, and if it is an author whose name you want on the cover, the author may even own copyright.
Even if the letter is Meghan's creation, if she wrote it, with the knowledge and assistance of family and staff, to protect/bolster her image as a working royal, it was work she produced as an 'employee' of the Crown (it is work product) and thus the Crown owns copyright. Meghan cannot have her cake and eat it - blame staff and royal family but claim ownership/copyright.
The decision on this will have wide-ranging consequences across the publishing world. MOS may be best served to throw in the towel and concede to her, and perhaps Warby knows that.
I am disappointed that there was no reprimand for Meghan and that she got away with treating the court with contempt, defying a court order and telling blatant lies. Another judge might not have treated her with such deference, which she does not deserve.
Thanks so much!
The DM and MoS are dreadful rags and deserved to lose this case. Witness how they treated Caroline Coster, a Covid survivor and double amputee. It is a great pity that it took a hypocrite like MM to expose them as opposed to a genuine victim. This will embolden her and it is unlikely that the Meghan Markle back story will ever see the light of day in the UK press now.
No one gives a fig about Smug.
Mark Stephens CBE, a partner at Howard Kennedy and an expert in media law, warned tonight that the media were being 'manacled' and in future these letters would simply be published outside the jurisdiction.
Mr Stephens told the MailOnline: 'The implications of today are that Meghan has silenced her critics and the journalists who would wish to leak these sorts of letters in the future, so effectively the media are being manacled.
'This is a letter that could have easily been published in the United States and you are in a situation where going forward people will leak these letters to media in America.
'The judge takes the view that the letter is private and it is up to Meghan who she shares it with.
'Thomas Markle makes the allegation that she created an attack through PR and her friends.
'If that’s right it means rich and powerful people who can afford PR and representation will be able to curate their reputations without the media being able to expose that.'
Has anyone else read the judgment and perhaps understood something different?
Knighthood:
This must be the answer. This must be what the UK signed on to. These same "laws" are what illegal aliens and rejected asylum seekers (their lawyers) use in UK to not get booted out.
Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Updated on 31 August 2019 Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf
Knighthood: perhaps serves as leverage in this kind of court
The secrets that make men serve her: we can speculate
Another Why: displayed loose cannon tendencies, will refuse to turn over information, lie, create imaginary friends, imaginary illnesses and babies....Better to give in, as someone high up may have requested
Others in her world should be prepared to lawyer up for the next five years, perhaps.
I also fear, as other do here, that MM is going to be even more insufferable after this outcome.
The only thing to do is to get into my dark chocolate stash and hope that the justice system in GB comes up with something to stop this attack on a free press in the next round.
@Puds,
Remember the photos of Thomas being measured for the suit in Mexico? So, if he was measured in Mexico, where was he expected to go for the second or third fitting, which are always done on high-quality bespoke suits? Who selected the fabric, and when was it sent to him? It surely wasn't bought in his little town in Mexico. Who measured him? Did they expect him to fly to GB or Canada for a second fitting? It doesn't make sense.
Now, I'm off to drown my sorrows in chocolate. I'll need my fat pants for this.
Puds -
page 198, the last paragraph of FF-
"His bespoke suit and custom shoes were waiting at the Oliver Brown tailors in Chelsea, as was the military veteran Harry had asked to help accompany Meghan's father for his journey from London to Windsor."
I do not believe this. Was Thomas ever measured for this expensive suit and shoes? I have never seen mention of this except in FF. Still, this might have taken place.
As far as the military veteran on standby? Complete BS! It is said you can often tell a lie because liars embellish too much. The tell here is military veteran, in an attempt to spin in honor and legitimacy, into Megsy on Thomas at/not at the wedding.
Here is Thomas Markle's unclaimed suit being worn to Ascot!
If Thomas was measured for bespoke shoes, where is Thomas' "last"? A last is a mold of the foot that shoemakers use for the first pair of shoes, and it is then kept by the shoemaker so that the customer can just call and order another new pair of shoes. Their bespoke last will give a bespoke fit, unless their foot size changes.
All highly respected bespoke shoemakers keep their customers' lasts.
******************************
Does anybody know where Harry's military uniforms are being kept? In the UK, or did he bring them to California? Who actually owns them- GB, HMTQ or Harry?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry show up at another military cemetery next year in full British military regalia, dropping his pathetic flowers on some other poor veteran's grave.
LONDON — In a striking legal victory for Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, in their bitter feud with the British tabloids, a High Court judge ruled on Thursday that one of them, The Mail on Sunday, had invaded Meghan’s privacy by publishing a private letter she had sent to her estranged father.
The judge, Mark Warby, ruled that Meghan, who is also known as the Duchess of Sussex, had “a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private.” The disclosures from the letter, in articles published by The Mail, were “manifestly excessive and hence unlawful,” he added.
The summary judgment spares the duchess the prospect of testifying against her father in a messy public trial. But the judge ruled there would still be a trial to determine legal damages on a related claim of copyright violation.
At the heart of the case is an anguished five-page letter that the duchess wrote to her father, Thomas Markle, a former Hollywood lighting designer, in August 2018, four months after he was a no-show at her wedding to Prince Harry.
In the letter, she accused her father of breaking her heart into a “million pieces” by speaking to the tabloids about their estrangement while refusing to take her phone calls.
The Mail obtained the letter, presumably from Mr. Markle, and published it in February 2019. The tabloid’s owner, Associated Newspapers, contended that Mr. Markle had been under no legal obligation to keep the letter private and that the duchess, as a public figure, should not have expected it to remain confidential.
The duchess said in a statement, “After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and The Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanizing practices.”
She added: “The world needs reliable, fact-checked, high-quality news. What The Mail on Sunday and its partner publications do is the opposite.”
Prince Harry and his wife have complained bitterly about their treatment by the tabloid press, both before and after their high-profile split with the British royal family last year. Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex, has a separate lawsuit pending against the tabloids for allegedly hacking his cellphone.
The duke has been particularly incensed by coverage of his wife, which he has likened to the tabloids’ relentless pursuit of his mother, Princess Diana, which ended in her death after a high-speed car chase by photographers in Paris in 1997.
In April, after the couple moved to Los Angeles, they notified The Mail on Sunday and three other tabloids — The Sun, The Daily Mirror and The Daily Express — that they would no longer engage with them.
The couple remain a tabloid staple, even if coverage of them has been overshadowed in the last year by the coronavirus pandemic. Recent stories have speculated about whether Meghan would accompany Harry to Britain this summer for a series of celebrations, including the 100th birthday of his grandfather, Prince Philip (the consensus: No, because she does not want to be away from their son, Archie).
saw it — and the resulting rift between them.”
For a press corps that clearly misses covering the couple, the lawsuit generated fresh grist, not least about the troubled relationship between Meghan and her father.
Last month, Mr. Markle, 76, submitted a witness statement on behalf of Associated Newspapers, in which he said he decided to release extracts of his daughter’s letter to correct misperceptions about him in an article published by People magazine, which cast him in an unflattering light.
Meghan’s letter, he said, “actually signaled the end of our relationship, not a reconciliation.”
The litigation has not been without setbacks for Meghan. Last May, Justice Warby struck out several elements of her case, ruling that The Mail would not be judged on whether it had acted dishonestly; had stirred up conflict between Meghan and her father; or had published offensive and intrusive articles about her.
Instead, he said, the case would hinge purely on whether the publication of the letter violated Meghan’s privacy.
While Justice Warby found that it did, he said a trial would be needed to settle the question of whether she was the sole author of it or had a co-author: Jason Knauf, who was a communications adviser to the couple when they lived in Kensington Palace. That would allow him to claim some damages.
Justice Warby’s 53-page judgment offers a vivid, at times unsavory, glimpse into the byzantine relations between the royal family and the press that covers them. But on the basic question of whether The Mail violated Meghan’s privacy, the judge was clear.
It was, he declared “a personal and private letter.”
“The majority of what was published,” the judgment continued, “was about the claimant’s own behavior, her feelings of anguish about her father’s behavior — as she
The article reads like a heavily slanted prepared PR drop, doesn’t it? I wonder if it is.
It rather seems to hide an intention to confuse behind a veil of batting eyes, and poor research, Example: “presumably” the MoS obtained the letter from Thomas Markle. “After he was a no-show at her wedding...” “While refusing to take her phone calls...”. “Anguish.”
Inflammatory, carefully chosen, masking language in my opinion, and people should research this for themselves.
Mark Warby (who has a knighthood) taught the British public something interesting today about the mystery of circumstances and titles. His interest, or not, in creating a chilling effect in the media will be a fun topic worth studying.
I'm not sure why the NY Times takes such a sympathetic view towards Meghan.
@Animal Lover: The NYT is sympathetic because they are fellow elitist, uber woke, booger-eating, bedwetting lefty travelers. (I think I sufficiently covered the basics with that description.) The Sussexes want to be able to suppress, control, and manipulate information they don’t like, just as the NYT and most of the mainstream media including tech media, does here in the US.
Although they are different types of narcissists, they are a lot alike in their behaviors. Lying comes to each as naturally as breathing, both are control freaks and incessant manipulators who view people only in terms of being beneficial or not beneficial, they always think they are the smartest person in the room, and neither can take criticism and wish to control the narrative about themselves.
One of the big differences between them is that most narcissists live behind the facades they create for themselves. Meghan lives behind a variety of facades and Trump has no facade. He just puts it all out there, which caught the attention of voters in 2016, but eventually became exasperating, especially as the pandemic dragged on.
One thing I noticed about Meghan’s statement is that she bemoaned the “misinformation” in media just as Trump did. He just used a different phrase: “Fake news.”
So when you read or see video of Meghan whining about “misinformation,” she’s just calling it “fake news.”
Oh yes, another major difference, Trump actually has some major achievements in his lifetime. Meghan followed the theory of “Bed, Wed, and Bred as her only achievement.
Jenns - I just can’t anymore, I’ve had it
with the whole bloody shebang!!
I did think about setting my alarm
for 5 am to check the result, luckily
I didn’t, would have woken the whole
house/neighbourhood
with my loud profanities!! 🤬
Thanks for the Times article, not had the
chance/inclination to read any articles, yet!
Warby v Wordly
Justice Woeby has let us all down
Seems it’s true he’s aligned to the crown
They may have won the battle
Poor victim of tittle-tattle
But the war will be won by the pen,
not the gown
The pen is mightier than the whored
The press must be fuming
An appeal surely looming
Is this the end of free speech
She deserves a good clout
For the laws she did flout
Hopefully held in contempt,
or in breach
No persons were harmed in my reference
to clout. Wishful thinking is still allowed,
I hope 😉
Thanks for the very clever witticisms
They're especially needed right now.
I made an angry Spongebob-Meg showing up to high court with her suitcase ready to fight for an appeal after losing all counts. But I got it wrong. I should have made a smug-mug SpongMeg or a flirty one making cow eyes at Judge Wobbly.
What time is it in Oz right now Magatha?😍
Cheers Jen, argh, love spongemeg!!
6pm here, and humid, having a beverage
to cool me down!!
I am so peed off, don’t know what to think/believe
anymore. Really disappointed, only read bits
of her gloating statement, sickening.
As I said to WB, keep buggering on,
and taking the p..s 😘
It ain’t over till the yacht shady sings!
Megulated Media
Megs will be on a big high
Unaware that it’s all pie in the sky
For each megulation
There’ll be more speculation
She’ll be wrung out, and left there to fry
As for the case, reading all the back and forth here I’m almost positive Meghan claimed she was sexually abused growing up by her father. There is just no other reason a court of law would feel the need to protect her, or her privacy further and disregard the whole point of the case- Thomas. Meghan is sick and knows exactly how to villainize people to her advantage. I’m truly disgusted that a judge would not fact check anything this woman claims. In court!
I can’t wait for Meghan to throw down a lawsuit against a major player in the US. For one, she won’t due to the fact the US relies on facts to decide judgments, and the expense and no holds barred way Americans engage in justice. She is not famous in America, and her ratings are failing. Interestingly, this case got little to no press coverage.
Karma Harries
Megs has made it quite clear
She talks a lot, mostly out of her rear
Poor old Tom had no say
All Megsies own way
Karma will not adhere
To megs plans, ah, no fear
I hope Tom has his day
Sometime soon, Megs will pay
As we all rejoice with a loud cheer
It’s not just DM/MoS, all UK Media
will be affected. Very scary!!
Someone has to step up now
otherwise we’ll be eating our own, organic!
Foken Food!
#Peepeats
"@Acquitaine
You mentioned that Warby chose to read Art 8 as absolute.
What would be examples of other ways he could have interpreted, used and applied those "rights"."
Art 8 has a caveat that can be interpreted as 'special circumstances' that render it subjective ie privacy should be absolute unless there are extenuating circumstances that require that privacy to be invaded.
MoS was arguing fair use and Meghan's own PR efforts that invaded her own privacy to extent that DM had to comment on it eg FF. They also argued that as a public person anything she made public was worth commenting on. They also argued that she made the letter public first and were able to demonstrate tyat the quotes used in people were identical to passages in the letter.
The Judge read art 8 in absolute terms which eftectively voided all of MoS arguments ie to use an analogy - even if i catch you standing over a bleeding dead body with weapon in your hands and a video showing you committing the murder and DNA evidence to ironclad the evidence against you, it doesn't matter. You are free to go your merry way because law says your right to privacy is sacrosanct and my taking you to court interferes with that.
It effectively blocks MoS completely. No commenting or publishing yhe elephant in the room. Not even if the elephant is walking infront of your offices begging to be papped to show the world that she is Harry's girlfriend circa 2016.
Copyright will be interesting because if the trial is able to demonstrate that Jason etc and the Crown have or share copyright, it will bring up issues of privacy and shine a light (Ha!) on the PR strategy to defame her father.
Sing-along, apologies to the Moody Blues
Bloody Trues
Shite in white satin
She’s reaching her end
Letters she’s written
Meaning to offend
Just what the truth is
She don’t know anymore
Just cash the cheque babe,
as we walk out the door
In the Telegraph, their article shows that Megalo declared: “We have all won.” [all? What about Thomas?]
(My italics/bold above and below). Here are some excerpts:
The Duchess hailed a “comprehensive win” on both privacy and copyright, saying: “We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their business model to profit from people’s pain.”
....
However, media experts described it as “a bad day for press freedom”, acknowledging that the case was widely expected to go to trial so the evidence could be tested.
One media law expert, who declined to be named, said the costs of the case were likely to be in the region of £5million. The lawyer said damages for the breach of privacy could be as high as £300,000 but that the award for the infringement of copyright could far exceed that because the Duchess is entitled to seek “an account of profits” – that is any profit made by Associated Newspapers as a result of articles using her letter to her father.
....
A hearing would have to assess what profits were made by the publishers as a result but the total could potentially be huge. In the year ending September 2019, covering the period when the letter was published in February, Associated Newspapers made a pre-tax profit of £59million and after tax of £47million. A court would have to decide the extent of the profits the newspaper and website made from publishing its articles on the letter.
....
The judge said a partial trial on the copyright could go ahead but warned Associated Newspapers against the wisdom of proceeding. [sounds like a threat to me]
....
An Associated Newspapers spokesman said they were “very surprised” by the ruling and disappointed that they had been denied the chance to have the evidence tested in open court. The publisher is considering whether to appeal.
------------------
One last point: excerpts from Diana's letters have been published,e.g. by Paul Burrell, and of course she wasn't there to sue but IIRC William and H never sued on her behalf, as it were, for breach of privacy etc. Or was that legal once Diana was dead?
@Magatha
Thank you for 'The pen is mightier than the whored' :). Sadly, the whore(d) is mightier for now.
"UK made its Brexit. Then how do the EU Human Right Laws in Section 8 apply in a British Court for Meghan/Hapless? Are these possibly UN human rights laws that UK signed on to?"
As part of it's exit contract, Brirain agreed to keep those parts of EU laws that it had agreed as a member of the EU.
We officially left on 31st December 2020.
Any laws prior to that date are part of UK law now.
The good news about the Human Rights laws in post-Brexit Britain is that they are currently being debated in oarliament with a view to reverse them or amend them significantly because so many people have used them to legally enforce tgeir own bad behaviour or to avoid punishment.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-might-brexit-affect-human-rights-in-the-uk/
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2019/january-2019/human-rights-act-is-not-safe-after-brexit/
EDIT: google threw up this article about section 8 law that won Meghan's case.
https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/humanrights/
It seems we won't get rid of section 8, and Meghan's case is the first to use it to protect privacy in a case where she clearly did wrong by invading her own privacy for PR purposes.
Aquitaine, that is unbelievable, and so wrong.
Act 8 gives villains a stay out of jail card?
Is it just for the rich, who can afford top notch
lawyers to enforce this?
Either way, it sickens me.
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.
I think people are misunderstanding. Privacy is not about not divulging information, but you being in control of what you divulge, when and how. Obviously that does not/should not inxlude information concerning criminal matters, but the fear is that it is how it will be used.
If you choose to pose naked for a magazine spread, you do not lose the right to sunbathe naked beside your pool and be protected from photographers taking unnvited photos of you and then selling them to the media.
If you choose to rape someone in the privacy of your own home, you have commited a criminal offence and thus do not have the right to claim privacy.
There are blurred boundaries on these issues. They are serious, but Meghan, in the time of the virus, has used the law for her own vanity because she has the money to do so, and there are people cheering her on. In the past, I have been involved in human rights campaigns and the fight for equal pay and opportunities for women. I am appalled by Meghan's behaviour and the world that people like her are creating (but I am a student of history so I know she and her like will get their come-uppance and it won't be pretty, but she will do a lot of damage before then).
Megs has finally come first in something.
Pity it’s such a deplorable Act.
That the Queen sent her grey men to intervene, to get the Wobbly Warby his elevation to the Court of Appeal. His part of the deal was to rule for Megsy the other day. His ruling is contradictory, illogical.
_______________
Mark Warby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In July 2020 his appointment to the Court of Appeal was announced, to take effect in 2021.[11]
_______________
@Acquitaine ---- You certainly know your material. Apropos of nothing, a new series on Anne Anne Boleyn is coming with a black actress portraying her, one of me favorite figures in British history. "With her 'ead tucked underneath her arm"
Is this cultural appropriation?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9250329/Jodie-Turner-Smith-transforms-Anne-Boleyn-look-new-Channel-5-drama.html
You should know that everything is a human right these days. You look at me and you've breached my 'yuman rights'. That's what the Human Rights act has come to.
That Warby J. was promoted to the Court of Appeal during the case hardly helps though I should point out when that happens the Judge is always knighted. Then there is the mystery as to why it was acceptable to delay the trial for a period of nine months. Short delays are not unknown but nine months - come on. Again it looks like one law for the rich and another for everyone else. Judges I regret to inform all assembled are in my experience no less impressed by celebrities (in their case of the elite) than us peasants are impressed by Telly celebs (e.g. Jordan or the Kardashians). It is I am afraid human nature. Markle's lies and obfuscations and need to amend her pleadings not in any way impeding her road to victory. Trust me that would be pretty much case suicide with any ordinary person.
The MoS say they are considering an appeal. To me that does not sound very definite. I think this is the last we will hear of the matter.
L’act 8 - Crest feeder
Megs was first out the gate
In deploying the deplorable Act 8
With no care for the world
Or what she’s unfurled
No wonder she’s looked on with hate
Meghan has absolute and sole copyright of the letter (in my opinion the Palace Four will give her that by declining to join the motion for damages). However, that letter was sent to her father and the contents were deeply distressing to him and were about his relationship with his daughter and the ending of that relationship. People magazine, probably instigated by Meghan but definitely because Meghan had shared that letter with a number of people without her father's knowledge or consent, used excerpts from the letter and reporting about the letter to improve Meghan's image. They went one step further and revealed his letter to Meghan without his permission, and gave him no right of reply.
Thomas does not have the financial means to defend his privacy and his reputation/image so he went to MOS. His rights were not only not upheld but dismissed as immaterial by Warby (essentially they were for the letter case). Meghan had millions to waste on a case that threw everything at MOS - copyright, privacy, data protection, human rights.
Unlike her claims in her victory statement, her win was not for the people but, in fact, was a win for rich people at the expense of the rights of ordinary people.
Copyright will be interesting because if the trial is able to demonstrate that Jason etc and the Crown have or share copyright, it will bring up issues of privacy and shine a light (Ha!) on the PR strategy to defame her father.
*
Yes, this is precisely what I meant when I said yesterday a trial should bring out the rats, with emphasis on should...
With the RF behind Meghan (for whatever reason), it seems unlikely however, as we saw with yesterday's ruling.
Next steps for the duchess.
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/next-steps-for-the-duchess
Jen, I think the various newspapers,
including broadsheets, have banded together.
Only way they will win.
If they can’t publish in the UK
they will leak to European/US papers.
Megs will be revealed, along with her ma.
Out, damned spot!
Maneki, ‘tis pity she’s a whore,
I expected so much more 😉
*
This! Says it all. Silence anyone who threatens to out a member of the BRF. Meghan is despised by them, of that I'm sure but she's attached to Harry and that's her only saving grace...
@HappyDays,
It's about time someone makes the glaring comparison of Meghan Markle and Donald Trump. Two peas in a pod but one happens to be a member of the most powerful family in the world and it's not Teflon Don...
@Natalier ie: the Depp case. Yes! Totally agree. He has his demons but what was done to him in court was a reaming of the worst kind. Too bad he didn't woo one of the York sisters instead of Amber Turd.
In Wobbly court Megsy pled
While poor Archie said-
Who's my ma?
Who's my pa?
A surrogate?
Got past Queen's gates
The RF could not rate?
I might never know
Why the RF kow-tow
To Megs on the scene
Hypnotizing Charles and Queen
Both were in thrall
This says it all
My friends in grade school
Will know I broke all the rules
For human existence
Due to Megs' past persistence
Megs keep your distance
You never got knocked up
I hope you get locked up
You Harry too
Alleged father I rue
I had never seen From Hell where Depp plays an inspector assigned to the infamous Ripper case of Victorian Whitechapel. I found it on Hulu a couple of days ago. I totally enjoyed the premise, though fantastical perhaps.
Not to start any antique conspiracy theories but I have always been intrigued with the idea that old bloody Jack was very close to the BRF thus the over 100 year old case has never been solved... and will never be solved.
Whoever he was, he **may have been afforded a protection likened to what we have seen over these past two days.
Just an example of how strong a Royal arm can be. In theory...
This was a man who had participated, encouraged and continued to encourage violent terrorism against the world including the UK which had granted him asylum after he committed atrocities in his home country and arrived in the UK as a political refugee.
The US found that he was one of the masterminds of a terror attack on US soil so they insisted UK arrest him - EU laws and human rights had been used to keep him out of jail.
Once in UK jail, he used human rights to receive an extremely cushy jail situation that included a 3 room suite / flat within the jail where he could live, receive and host visitors, sitting room, everything a regular person would have access to on the outside. He also received a twice weekly physiotherapist visit to message and look after the stumps of his arms - he'd blown off his hands in one of his terrorist activities when he was younger. And he was allowed to continue publishing and sending out his hateful rhetoric inciting young men to take up arms against the west.
It took a concerted media campaign to get the politicians to start commenting in parliament on the case to point out the abuse of the Human Rights code by this individual and especially how he was using it to block his extradition to the US.
It was slowly turning into a national scandal when The Queen leaked a comment that showed she was in favour of getting rid of him to the US and after that leak the US once again applied for extradition and off he went to the US.
He is currently languishing at America's pleasure at a supermax jail, no therapy, no physio, getting the same treatment as every other prisoner at Supermax.
Post script: He recently applied to the European court to be transferred back to UK jail because life was much better and his human tights respected....Lol
The point of my story is that our Judicial system has frequently been overruled by EU laws. It is/ was ridiculous.
I hope we prevail getting rid of it or at the very least reform it completely because there are alot of cases like that gentleman who are clear criminals, but using the Human Rights code as currently written to thwart or waterdown Judicial decisions.
She tried to make the court case about libel/defamation, but that was shot down by Warby.
Note that her statement 'claims' the 'victory' was about holding the media accountable for accurate and truthful reporting.
Nope, her case was about copyright, privacy and data protection ... not for some kind of important issue but over a nasty letter she wrote and sent to her father.
She lives in an echo chamber where she only hears her voice, only sees her views, only considers her needs ...
Tell me she is not a toxic narc! HG Tudor reckons she is unconscious of being a narc and thus thinks how she feels, thinks and acts is perfectly normal and justified, and that she is incapable of changing because of this. Please stay tuned for forthcoming attractions from Meghan and her loyal lapdog, Harry?!
The only crumb of comfort I can find is that perhaps the British Press will fail to print anything about her, thereby giving her the privacy she says she wants, at least in the UK. In reality, it'll drive her nuts.
We may have to rely on Nutties living elsewhere for our information.
-------
A couple more random thoughts:
Was one reason for leaving UK and Canada behind that was to be free of the Royal Protection Officers, who may have been reporting back on her antics?
---------
If there is a child which is genetically the product of the H$Ms, wouldn't the RF do their utmost to keep him away from anyone who might suggest to him that one day, he could be king? The last thing they'd want is a pretender popping up, especially one who could take after his parents where mental stability is concerned.
----------
What is the probability of the H$Ms getting their come-uppance in the US? We've mentioned IRS and speculated about their presumed habits getting the better of them. Is there anything else that could bring about their downfall?
What is American law like on forcibly detaining those who are dangerously unstable mentally?
----------
Just for fun (bearing in mind that following the financial crash of 12-13 yrs ago, there was a joke that asked `What is the difference between Ireland and Iceland?
Answer: one letter and about 6 months.)
What's the difference between Welby and Warby?
`Two letters and ???'
Suggestions please.
And as that war leader, who is now being reviled, used to mark papers, echoed by Magatha, - `KBO'
Can anyone make a suggestion please?
Here are all Lady C's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMlk9gp1WNndfOjs0_1gG3g/videos
What is American law like on forcibly detaining those who are dangerously unstable mentally?
*
Just one purusing of any article on any large city (or small town) in Bat Shit Crazy Merica will answer this question. No way in hell will Harkles ever be detained for dangerously unstable mental behaviors.
I suspect they will fade into obscurity in this country. Meghan however will continue to do all she can to rent space in the heads of many residing in the UK, England to be precise. She has them in her cross hairs obviously, as only a narc of her caliber can do.
Lavender Lady - of course, you're absolutely right, I wasn't thinking.
My fondest hope now is that the media in the UK will forget that the Harkles exist now. Refuse to write anything about them out of fear of litigation, and focus on what I consider the "true" royal family that has stayed the course and is doing the work.
We all know that attention is what she seeks... Please UK media, don't give it to her.
I guessed very quickly who you were alluding to. Yes, he abused the HR legislation. And yes, he now wants to come back to the UK, which, let's not forget, he described as 'a toilet'.
@WBBM
Lady C's videos are there. Here is the latest one:
https://youtu.be/oRgeGmCQ4yc
Of the 'Palace Four', Warby says Jason can claim co-authorship of the letter (and thus shared copyright). That is what the forthcoming trial will be about.
My understanding of Warby's judgment is that Jason can decline to make that claim and thus all that is left is for Meghan to claim damages (I think she is limited in this).
However, I am not sure if ANL can try to prove in a trial that Meghan was not the sole author and thus is not the sole copyright holder (tricky argument anyway) if Jason does not co-operate.
Meghan has claimed to be the sole copyright owner of the letter. To defend this in a trial puts her at the risk of more dirty laundry being aired (statements from the Palace Four, text messages and emails that they saved but Meghan said she deleted all of which have been sealed ...).
So, who is Jason Knauf?
He is an American with connections to New Zealand. He has had a number of high-powered jobs. This is his career trajectory with the royals:
Communications Secretary to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
Feb 2015 - Mar 2019 (4 years 2 months)
Senior Adviser to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Mar 2019 - Present (2 years)
Chief Executive Officer
The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Sep 2019 - Present (1 year 6 months)
https://uk.linkedin.com/public-profile/in/jason-knauf-b47a106b?challengeId=AQFdKxhh27gi2wAAAXeWjD2ZV531dzqtTvi_M9JG6g7EGGpfZ99yL-phsnsQOSthFAGViS67jnyg6pL5IlgpJ7iYxwlcsfR5FA&submissionId=13ee8f59-ed04-6316-c4b7-a7d7b835fc50
Meghan is messy and the dirt rubs off. Jason is not going to want to jeopardize the reputation of The Royal Foundation and the Cambridges.
I think the Cambridges would do well in the private sector. They are of good character, have years of experience of initiating and leading major projects (plus managing staff, running an office, and dealing with the media), and are well respected.
In its long history, the monarchy has survived far worse than the Harkles and I think they will survive the Harkles, but sometimes radical change happens quickly!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9254109/Princess-Eugenie-leaves-hospital-baby-son.html
I'm waiting to see just how the tabs will get their revenge
Jenn S asks me why I think this is the end of the matter given that the MoS say they are considering an appeal. It is for that reason. They do not say they ARE appealing or have lodged papers already for an appeal which is the sort of thing people say when they are really wound up by a judgement that went against them. It might of course be my disappointment which leads me to that negative conclusion but even if I am wrong (and let us hope so) mounting a successful appeal is not easy. The MoS would have to show not merely that Warby J. was wrong in law but that his wrongness materially affected the outcome. This will presumably then be a matter of degree and the Court of Appeal will not overturn the judgement just because any of the three appellate judges might have held differently had they been trying the case at first instance. No one I think is going to suggest that Markle could not have applied for Summary Judgement despite the history of the case and her behaviour. It then follows that unless Warby's judgement is seen as so unconscionable such that no reasonable member of the judiciary could have decided as he did that the appeal must then fail. That, if there is an appeal will presumably be the MoS's approach. I may of course be missing a lot - after all it is not my case. Most appeals fail and more often than not they are a desperate last move.
"What is American law like on forcibly detaining those who are dangerously unstable mentally?"
Not likely these days IMO.
In general, people have a right to live freely unless they have been lawfully sentenced to prison after conviction of a crime or are so imminently dangerous to themselves or others they can be involuntarily detained in a hospital setting.
M's "dangerousness" is not the type that would ever result in involuntary psychiatric confinement so far as I can see. Being a bitch, or an assh***, or even a crappy selfish parent won't do it. Being manipulative and absurdly greedy won't either. Being a liar or a thief, nope. Being a substance abuser, usually not unless the person is a minor or the abuse has resulted in a serious hospital-treated overdose, then maybe. (Harry might fall in that group sometime so far as I can see.) Having a mental illness or a personality disorder isn't enough. Being delusional isn't enough unless the delusion(s) held make the person dangerous for other reasons. In other words, having odd thoughts that aren't reality-based isn't enough.
Some reasons people may be committed: attempting suicide, clearly and credibly threatening homicide, stopping medication and as a result becoming frankly psychotic or extremely manic, being demented and unable to care for oneself, and so forth.
It's difficult to deprive a person of his/her freedom and overall that's a good thing IMO. While there may be people walking around who are "bat shit crazy" as @LL put it, that's the price we pay for not having our mental institutions used for political purposes to silence critics, used as re-education camps, or used merely to get rid of inconvenient family members such as "uncooperative" wives.
When we talked about this issue in the past, some posters claimed it was still easy to get people committed in small towns. I find that a bit hard to believe especially since small towns aren't going to have mental institutions in them (or even regular hospitals with a few psyc beds.) And even if the civil commitment proceeding occurs in a small town, the professional staff at a large town hospital isn't likely to collude with the small town powers in keeping someone locked up who clearly isn't imminently dangerous and/or for whom the evidence was weak for commitment. (Being held for 72 hrs may happen though.) Finally, unlike before the development of anti-psychotic meds in the 1960s/1970s, and the "deinstitutionalization" movement begun in the 1960s, there are few asylums and relatively few psyc beds in the US. So we really don't lock up people and throw away the key as was sometimes done long ago.
I'd put more faith in the IRS but it seems to have become politicized so who knows.
...'thus all that is left is for Meghan to claim damages (I think she is limited in this).'
Not sure she is limited, I copied and pasted an excerpt from the Telegraph this morning which mentions her damages (my emphasis)n
One media law expert, who declined to be named, said the costs of the case were likely to be in the region of £5million. The lawyer said damages for the breach of privacy could be as high as £300,000 but that the award for the infringement of copyright could far exceed that because the Duchess is entitled to seek “an account of profits” – that is any profit made by Associated Newspapers as a result of articles using her letter to her father.
Wow! So, ANL will have to pay all her costs (except for those motions within the case that she lost), plus she can ask for maximum settlement amount for each charge, plus she can claim a percentage of ANL profits? Meghan was not frugal in the amount of money she threw at this court case. If she had asked for an SJ from day 1, the costs would be a lot less; if she had negotiated a settlement without proceeding to court (as Harry did), the costs would be a lot less.
I totally agree with your assessment on the behavioral health issues in the USA currently.
I'm my area, I had a very hard time getting a highly psychotic person picked up by the police for eval. It takes an emergency order which is percipitated by the actual pu order which is generated and signed by a psychiatrist. They may get sent to a state mental hospital but said hospital will release them on a whim. Since it's quite aways from the urban area, the patient is put on a bus and sent back to their "home". The hospital have the unnerving gall to let the care team know they were releasing that day, usually in an hour or so. No advanced notice. We were convinced it was to deter its from sending more folk their way. It took me great creativity to get one to stick and remain in the hospital for a year.
It's a total joke...
Score for Queen and her grey men.
US media will continue to play with them for awhile. But no one over here really cares. They're a novelty, a distraction.
I am wondering what the US media reaction will be to some of the ruling. the laws are different here and it would be really special if US media (the majority of it vs the tabloids) would decide to ignore them too. I can wish...........
There is no doubt in my mind that TQ interferred in some way. Once it was announced the Palace 4 were involved & may have to testify. And i find myself thinking, maybe someone with P4 had advised Charles what was going on with the letter and they are afraid his name will be mentioned.
I have first hand experience with this. My now ex-husband sexually abused our then 18 year old daughter. Once I found out what happened, I promptly left and filed for divorce and encouraged her to contact law enforcement to press charges. He confessed fully when interviewed by police.
His family rallied around him! They did not contact the grandchild of theirs that he abused to find out if she was ok or even just to hear her side of the story. They made him out to be some kind of victim and tried to say that I made up the whole thing so I could divorce him. It was all about protecting the family name and reputation.
Needless to say he was convicted and went to prison. To this day there are members of his immediate family that believe that he went to prison over trumped up charges and it was all my fault.
Sorry to go OT, but just thought it was relevant.
And she can own a gun!
I am frankly, sickened by this ruling. It reeks of entitlement (at the very least).
And we have to listen to that .... heifer....crow for weeks.
If the palace ...interfered... I hold out no hope for any good outcomes as far as titles go in March. She may even give that puling a$$hat Harry his military patronages back.
Perhaps it IS time for the RF to retire. The overt corruption they repeatedly demonstrate signals the end of whatever uplifting effect the family are supposed to add.
I need to step back from this farce. I am obviously overly invested in this despicable saga.
.
I agree with @snarkyatherbest. There must be a massive secret(s) that the BRF do not want revealed. I realise a number of people say they have survived for a 1000 years and thwarted many threats, well what can be so damaging that they have clamped the lid down? They allowed the bottom feeder into their family and, as the Americans say, let this shitshow continue. They deserve whatever comes their way.
Hi mostly a lurker but a thought. if there were grey suit intervention is it because there are other letter/letters or other private images that are held that could incriminate members of the BRF (hmmmm held by MM) and so this privacy settlement basically means she cant sell them to the papers and monetize them so maybe this settlement is really about something else.
Hmmm...could be. Remember how she was accused of secretly taking pictures of one of the Cambridge children early on.
She is definitely underhanded and sneaky.
As if...
For all that a 4th youngster could put Rache's nose out of joint, I find it very hard to believe HM has been given the details, if any. Not her sort if thing at all.
Unless C & W been instructed to try and push H further down the Succession.
'Citing the case of Murray vs Express Newspapers, in which the author JK Rowling successfully sued over the publication of a photograph of her infant son in 2008, the judge said there was no “public interest” in Meghan’s relationship with her father.'
There is absolutely NO connection between the two. If JK Rowling doesn't want to show her children to the world and a photo of one of them is published, then this is a clear breach of her privacy. In Megalo's case, her father wanted to set the record straight and it was in the “public interest” to that MM, as a member of the BRF, was a liar and manipulator.
If the queen had any involvement in this, could it be because of a possible prosecution against Andrew (and the repercussions)?
I think we're now sick and tired of this whole spectacle de merde.
When I saw Elon Musk's planned rocket trip I could only think perfect solution to the meg problem as it's been said she would dump H for a billionaire.
@Magatha, can your talents help me. As I was dreaming of her in that rocket leaving earth with the song Leaving on a Jet Plane, not sure when I will be back again?
The Queen was scheming
or else you are dreaming
It was never too late
To deploy Section Eight
Grey men earning their keep
For Megsy's mission creep
Megs now's got the goods
To turn loose the flood
On the BRF
Oh, naïve naff
To Blackmail them most foul
Until Charles howls
Until they bleed
'Cause Harry had the need
To spill best Royal Tea
When stoned or drinking
What was he thinking
Revealing all and more
To the rent a whore
At Frogmore
Of course she did not, because she can't. She lets family members battle it out on their own.
There is only one time she ever intervened. Paul Burrel was being prosecuted for stealing belongings from Diana after her death. He claimed the Queen had given him permission to take stuff from her apartment. On the day the trial was due to start, while in her car and being driven to an engagement, Her Maj suddenly remembered that she had indeed given him permission to help himself. That was the end of the trial. Why Her Maj intervened is a mystery, but perhaps she just had had enough of the media circus around Diana and wanted to save her grandsons from a tacky trial centred on their mother and her butler. Perhaps she was telling the truth. But she did not try to influence the judge or anyone in the justice system.
Harry and Meghan are grown ups who can fend for themselves.
Meghan never got close enough to anyone in the royal family to have any 'dirt' to use for blackmail. There is nothing Harry could reveal that is earth-shattering - food for gossip, but no big reveal.
I have been reading through the judgment. Of course, the media will not do that and will hype the angle they want to promote. Although Warby did not reprimand Meghan as the judge did with Harry, he has recorded all the lies and shenanigans from Meghan, and detailed the whole background of the People article.
He ruled as he did because that is the law, and I am sure he does not want to take up valuable court time on a vanity court case that is not that important, despite what Meghan is putting put out via her PR.
I do disagree with the way she used the data protection act and the European human rights code, but it is up to ANL to appeal. As people have pointed out here that European code (or whatever it us called) has been used by wealthy to override a decision by a local council, democratically elected by the 'ordinary' people. Warby did not have the courage or conviction to use the case to challenge this trend.
https://www.lovecrafts.com/en-gb/p/meghan-markle-todays-inspiring-women-knitting-pattern-by-lovecrafts
I love the Norah Batty legs.
One thing I noticed about Meghan stans is that they use very binary/absolutist thinking.
Meghan good, wonderful, perfect, Princess, Queen, most important philanthropist/humanitarian/feminist/style icon ever ...
Thomas Markle bad, lies about everything, is the most awful human being ever who must be shunned and punished ...
Meghan calls the paps? She is not only defended but praised and worshipped for sharing herself with the adoring world.
Thomas calls the paps once and he is so evil that no punishment, no accusation is too much.
As someone on LSA pointed out, real life and real people are not like that!
Had this mess proceeded with a trial you would be naive to believe that ' nothing ' would be outed. Especially with the mystery surrounding the ' birth ' of ' Archie '. With that in mind, who calls a Royal tot Archie? If he is indeed ' Royal '.
.
Let us put it this way. Perhaps one can picture pond scum Grip as a female Hugh Despenser.
M has the IRS breathing down her neck. She refused to pay the IRS taxes while single, and is lucky she did not get jail time. She went to court and lost. Perhaps she is trying to threaten the IRS, or playing games by leaving the US and California taxes (combined taxes are 55 percent, plus real estate taxes, local taxes, taxes everywhere.) I know IRS agents who would give their right arm to investigate all the ins and outs of M and her prince little man finances. There is a saying that only if you have never cheated on your taxes will you be able to sleep at night. Otherwise, you are a moving target that the IRS will eventually net. The more they say do you know my grandmother is the Queen, the more the agents salivate. Sooner or later.
I wonder if any group wants to be associated with trigger-happy law suit creeps. They smell as bad as Cuomo does now, with his Covid lies.
EASIEST way to see Lady C’s videos.
Set up an account for YouTube:
Type Lady C in the YouTube search box.
1. Click on any of her videos. You will see a SUBSCRIBE (text) link.
2.Click on SUBSCRIBE. You are then subscribed to her channel.
3. After that, when you want to watch a video, you can click on the link “Subscriptions” at the bottom of the page. Click on Lady C and you should see all of her videos.
I’m not sure I like/enjoy her as much since her son has encouraged her to become a “YouTube influencer.” I liked her better when she was subtle and more evenhanded. She’s really let loose recently.
My husband, years ago, looked up everything he could find about using Delaware as a base for his company. He was shocked to learn that Delaware was a scam; for example, over 250,000 companies had their headquarters listed in the same building. I know Biden’s son Beau tried to protect these scammers, since they paid low business taxes. However, this has been changing, as now most states will tax a business on how much business they do in their states. For example, you do any business or work in California, you have to pay California state taxes, plus Delaware, though you might be able to deduct some taxes, but that loophole is closing or closed. Never, ever try to get the IRS attention by using sham headquarters. It is like seeing a bear cub on a walk, and trying to play with it. You will be in trouble in seconds.
I'm not clicking on any Harkle story that is online anymore. I can read enough in the intros to the story to get the gist of what's going on. I'm doing this to lower The Harkle clickbait articles, fully aware that my own lack of interest will barely make a dent.
If everybody does this, maybe we can stop MM from planting stories (which nobody will read), and the news agencies won't get clicks, either. Eventually, the Harkles will fade into oblivion, and MM won't get free PR from the online papers.
I am thoroughly disgusted by these two grifters, and I'm not too happy about Warby's decision, either.
Apparently Wills and Kate will be doing the horizontal mambo trying to conceive as I read in PEOPLE magazine. Sure..... Because W&K have so many sources that like to blab about their sex life and plans for more babies. I actually don't believe it at all. I think William had the 3rd child for Kate but I sense they are probably good.
Meghan is a weird Poison Pen person. You picture her on her computer just firing off one email after the other. How does that work? I suppose People and other venues insist on the name of the source of these stories
Jocelyn- I am trying to not click on articles. Like if Harry gives a video speech on whatever, I don't click on it or watch it. I've been doing that for awhile.
Great! I'm glad you're doing the same thing. These articles, magazine spreads, videos, are like oxygen to MM, whether it's good or bad news. If we cut off the oxygen supply, she will not continue to get press. She will become insignificant.
What do psychologists believe that you should do with a narc? Go gray rock on them, ignore them completely and keep them at a distance. This applies to MM and Harry, too.
@Yankee Doodle,
Here all of the details on opening an LLC in another state, which is possible, but is an unnecessary hassle in most cases. Delaware just has different tax codes, and they are not illegal. Delaware's tax code is also discussed in the article below.
It's not necessary to file in several states, and it is a hassle to do so. I don't see the advantage in setting up LLCs in different states. Setting up several LLCs in one state would have its advantages, but having LLCs in three different states is really not necessary and kind of overkill, but I am not privy to tatty's financial situation.
Many people love to set up LLCs because it makes them feel important. They will set up several LLCs, even though they have no assets to protect. They just love to see their names on official documents, and they usually name the LLC after themselves. It becomes a vanity project. In a year or two, they drop the LLCs because, unless they are in business, or need to protect assets, the LLC does nothing for them. They also love to incorporate themselves, again mostly as a vanity project. A good insurance policy would cover the problems they could run into as a private individual, such as somebody getting injured on your property. Also, an LLC doesn't completely protect you from a personal lawsuit.
findlaw.com/smallbusiness/incorporationandlegaltructures/can-i-register-my-llc-in-a-different-state
I had trouble linking this above, so if you can't get to that page, just Google, "find law can I file my LLC in a different state."
It is not unusual for the IRS to disallow some deductions people have claimed. That is what happened with MM. She is stubborn and she wound up in court over the dispute. I have never seen proof that she was engaged in lying or criminal behavior with her US taxes. No one likes to pay taxes.
There is nothing wrong with setting up a company in Delaware and the company being located in Idaho, for example, or in having a shell company. It is not illegal. States now actively compete to attract businesses to their state.
Sorry. I can see now that your attorney is setting up three different LLCs in ONE state, and that makes sense.
Is ANL has to profit share from revenue of the three articles. It’s going to be miniscule. Meghan is desperate to see her value in the billions and millions...and it’s not going to happen with three measly articles in the DM. I think she’s going to be quite shocked.
"It is not unusual for the IRS to disallow some deductions people have claimed. That is what happened with MM. She is stubborn and she wound up in court over the dispute. I have never seen proof that she was engaged in lying or criminal behavior with her US taxes. No one likes to pay taxes."
I've never seen a detailed account of exactly what happened with M's tax fight. All I've seen was on Harry Markle. If the court documents reproduced there were real, she ended up owing under $1K. Perhaps going to court reduced the amount she owed. But if it didn't, it likely cost her more than it was worth to go to court as she obviously was represented by an attorney. I believe Harry Markle said the issue was taxes re: Frim Fram, then incorporated in CA but now in Delaware.
I agree people don't like to pay taxes. But I do wonder if one court run-in makes the IRS look more carefully in the future. And @YankeeDoodle, I've often read that a home office deduction is a red flag.
What is American law like on forcibly detaining those who are dangerously unstable mentally?
Catch and release. Basically the only involuntary mental health detentions we have that isn't a short time hold is when crazy people kill somebody; until then, they are inflicted upon the public because the mentally ill have a right to be crazy. Some places in the USA have a right to self defense so there are far fewer dangerous psychos running around loose in areas such as that, which is where I live.
Oh, Lordy, it's raining again. It has rained for the last week. It's going to rain for another 10 days. And it isn't nice gentle nurturing female* rain. It is firehose aimed down from the heavens rain. Avenging rain. Male rain. *sigh*
*Thunder storms represent the male rain. The female rain, on the other hand, is gentle, with a soothing effect. In Navajo belief, there is a male and female to all things above, below, and around us. To Navajos, rain is one of the four main elements of Earth; light, air, and pollen are the others.