Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

What happened to M being adamant about testifying under oath? This lawsuit should have never been filed in court. What a waste of man power and docket space. JMO

Meg in 11th-hr bid to delay High Court fight that could prevent her giving evidence

What is a Summary Judgment?
The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if it is agreed that:

  • The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim
  • The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim
  • There is another compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial
 
Oregonmama said:
What happened to M being adamant about testifying under oath? This lawsuit should have never been filed in court. What a waste of man power and docket space. JMO

Meg in 11th-hr bid to delay High Court fight that could prevent her giving evidence

What is a Summary Judgment?
The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if it is agreed that:

  • The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim
  • The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim
  • There is another compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial
Click to expand...

The court will now need to say whether there is a legitmate defense for publishing a private letter obtained from the recipient and go from there.

I would think it would be a precedent setting judgement to go to trial on whether a third party referencing the existence of a letter voids the owner's copyright right to the letter.

MOO I hardly think MM will be getting a fair trial in a court full of privileged royalists, but the danger to the priviliged class themselves by giving a green light to the tabloids to invade their private letters may influence the decision.
To protect themselves I expect bogus "one off" type judgement.
 
Last edited:
Boxer said:
The court will now need to say whether there is a legitmate defense for publishing a private letter obtained from the recipient and go from there.

I would think it would be a precedent setting judgement to go to trial on whether a third party referencing the existence of a letter voids the owner's copyright right to the letter.

MOO I hardly think MM will be getting a fair trial in a court full of privileged royalists, but the danger to the priviliged class themselves by giving a green light to the tabloids to invade their private letters may influence the decision.
To protect themselves I expect bogus "one off" type judgement.
Click to expand...
The court has been fair to all parties. It's simple, don't write letters to estranged relatives with out suffering the consequences. But there was an agenda on M's part and it backfired on her. JMO
 
Oregonmama said:
The court has been fair to all parties. It's simple, don't write letters to estranged relatives with out suffering the consequences. But there was an agenda on M's part and it backfired on her. JMO
Click to expand...

MOO I don't think it is that simple.
The desire to profit from millions of clicks creates the motive to invade privacy at an extreme level.
Motive and money enough to corrupt most people and institutions.
 
Boxer said:
MOO I don't think it is that simple.
The desire to profit from millions of clicks creates the motive to invade privacy at an extreme level.
Motive and money enough to corrupt most people and institutions.
Click to expand...
Its simple. She said she "knew" who her father was but yet she writes a letter knowing that there was a good chance of the letter leaving his hands. Motive was PR to take down tabloids and be known for it, JMO. There is only one Princess Di.
 
MOO Each negative M article published in the massive Associated media empire M is clickable money.
MOO does not seem right they are allowed to proceed with an orchestrated campaign to defame the claimant.
 
According to this quote the media misunderstood (?) as this quote refers to Harry texting Prince Charles.
From the Sun UK -
The documents, submitted today said: "The information in the Book which was said could only have come from the Claimant was already in the public domain, or because it was plainly inaccurate (such as the reference to the Claimant’s husband sending a text message to his father, who does not own a mobile phone)."

Meg claims she never texted dad before wedding because he ‘doesn’t own mobile’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 1,799 (members: 209, guests: 1,590)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
1,590
Total visitors
1,799
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,559
Messages
18,096,680
Members
230,879
Latest member
CATCHASE
Back
Top