Oregonmama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2012
- Messages
- 7,768
- Reaction score
- 38,401
He was defending himself after a smear campaign was thrown at him. He made mistakes too but got fed up with the dishonesty about him. MOO
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers
- Thread starter maggieg
- Start date
Quite a few betrayals right off the bat. If those are mistakes he certainly has not said so.
What he has said is that selling his relationship information and opinion is profitable and he will continue.
He has publicly apologized for the staged photos which took place before the wedding and rather transparently. He has extended an olive branch more than once. He has spoken positively with warmth about Meghan as a young girl. He has also spoken positively about Doria. While there are dysfunctional issues he has exhibited remorse.
fridaybaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,009
- Reaction score
- 9,906
I think that in this case, that was the LAST thing MM wanted! I think the letter was written with the intent for it to be made public. It's sort of like crying that you want "privacy", but moving to.....LA.
<modsnip: off topic>
Last edited by a moderator:
<modsnip: quoted post was removed>This is purely american drama/antics with Markle trying to muzzle media. Markle versus Media, she will lose on the basis that she has a history of attempting to influence how information is reported utilizing people like Mulroney, and broadcasting her version of reality via "5 friends." Her recent past is muddy with attempted manipulation of media. She can't claim that she did not consider the consequence of leaking the letter to her 5 friends. She knew they would take it to the media, thus opening the door for her father to respond via media. There's too much "cake and eat it too" in Harry and Megan.
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, I might even go so far as to speculate whether Markle views this lawsuit as another get rich quick scheme.
Markle has been feeding information to her 5 friends for a long time, fully aware of the fact that those 5 friends deliver her message to the media. This has happened many times. Those same friends delivered Markle's message about her letter to the media. Markle isn't suing those friends, so she must agree with their message about the letter.
Markle was raised by her father and knows, or ought to have known, that her father would respond to her message by releasing the immaculately hand-written letter to the media.
Markle is known for thinking things through, so was this all done so that she could sue the media in the hopes of not only muzzling the media, but as another get rich quick scheme?
Markle has been feeding information to her 5 friends for a long time, fully aware of the fact that those 5 friends deliver her message to the media. This has happened many times. Those same friends delivered Markle's message about her letter to the media. Markle isn't suing those friends, so she must agree with their message about the letter.
Markle was raised by her father and knows, or ought to have known, that her father would respond to her message by releasing the immaculately hand-written letter to the media.
Markle is known for thinking things through, so was this all done so that she could sue the media in the hopes of not only muzzling the media, but as another get rich quick scheme?
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,722
- Reaction score
- 119,531
Please stay on topic by discussing the actual lawsuit with links to MSM regarding the lawsuit.
Unless you can relate your posted and linked information directly to the ongoing lawsuit, it is considered off topic and your post will be removed.
Unless you can relate your posted and linked information directly to the ongoing lawsuit, it is considered off topic and your post will be removed.
Last edited:
Her favored journalist Omid Scobie said on GMA that when the letter was written "MM knew that her father would release it. So, many of things in that letter were written with the public in mind. She wanted to set the record straight".
Only parts of the letter have been released. Guess we have to wait for the trial to see the full context of the letter.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,722
- Reaction score
- 119,531
This post lands at random.
The court's decision will be based on evidence and law. They won't be considering what the palace staff think of Meghan or whether Harry should have married some other nice girl, etc etc
For example, members might consider researching and linking to UK copyright law as it relates to personal correspondence, and basing theories and speculation of what the court may consider and how it may rule in relation that law.
The court's decision will be based on evidence and law. They won't be considering what the palace staff think of Meghan or whether Harry should have married some other nice girl, etc etc
For example, members might consider researching and linking to UK copyright law as it relates to personal correspondence, and basing theories and speculation of what the court may consider and how it may rule in relation that law.
Meghan Markle letter: copyright, public interest and privacy - what the law says
Copyright belongs to MM but how truthful is she being when she asserts the letter was private, when she discussed it with 5 friends (who all then went to People magazine to discuss the contents) and a journalist? IMO I believe that she wrote it with public consumption in mind, as " setting the record straight" was her main motivation.
If she really intended it to remain private why not take action against the 5 friends, since their comments to the magazine were what prompted her father's actions?
Not believable, IMO.
Copyright belongs to MM but how truthful is she being when she asserts the letter was private, when she discussed it with 5 friends (who all then went to People magazine to discuss the contents) and a journalist? IMO I believe that she wrote it with public consumption in mind, as " setting the record straight" was her main motivation.
If she really intended it to remain private why not take action against the 5 friends, since their comments to the magazine were what prompted her father's actions?
Not believable, IMO.
Markle's demonstrated and admitted history of media manipulate for personal gain:
"Meghan "caused or permitted" confidant Jessica Mulroney to contact her former commercial adviser, who had given an interview to the Mail on Sunday, in a bid to ensure "a more favourable article was published", it is alleged.
...
Ms Mulroney, a Canadian stylist and TV star, wrote to Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne "putting pressure on her to withdraw or change statements" around April 2018, claims the defence document for Associated Newspapers.
...
It claims the Sunday newspaper's features editor complained about the intervention of Meghan's friend, with Harry's then-communications secretary Jason Knauf allegedly responding by saying he would ensure "this does not happen again".
Meghan Markle asked friend Jessica Mulroney to influence story, Mail on Sunday claims in lawsuit
"Meghan "caused or permitted" confidant Jessica Mulroney to contact her former commercial adviser, who had given an interview to the Mail on Sunday, in a bid to ensure "a more favourable article was published", it is alleged.
...
Ms Mulroney, a Canadian stylist and TV star, wrote to Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne "putting pressure on her to withdraw or change statements" around April 2018, claims the defence document for Associated Newspapers.
...
It claims the Sunday newspaper's features editor complained about the intervention of Meghan's friend, with Harry's then-communications secretary Jason Knauf allegedly responding by saying he would ensure "this does not happen again".
Meghan Markle asked friend Jessica Mulroney to influence story, Mail on Sunday claims in lawsuit
Did her 5 friends break any laws when they talked? TM gave the letter to the newspaper on his own. He’s not a child. IMO
Thoroughly un-Royal and un-dignified to call someone a liar:
One of many links with the same claim:
Meghan Markle brands father Thomas a liar in court papers | Daily Mail Online
"Meghan Markle has branded her father a liar and denied she knew her influential friends planned to reveal details of her deteriorating relationship with him to an American magazine"
One of many links with the same claim:
Meghan Markle brands father Thomas a liar in court papers | Daily Mail Online
We're still waiting to hear whether the letter that is owned by Markle's father was his property to distribute as he saw fit. It appears that Markle's 5 friends are free to distribute information about Markle and her father as they see fit.
The Mulroney woman has become a spokesperson for Markle. Anyone who is publicly slandered by Markle via her "5 friends" should have the right to publicly respond.
Markle is a middle aged actor, not a child. She can take responsibility for her actions and decisions.
MOO the words she wrote belong to her.
Interesting article and a similar case involving Diana.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Who owns a letter once you've sent it?
Last edited:
From your link, the words belong to Markle, the letter itself belongs to her father. He is not a third party, as was the case with the letters sent to Lady Diana.
"An important distinction is that between a letter itself (i.e. a piece of paper) and the words written on that paper.
The ownership of the letter, as opposed to the words, is with the person it was sent to. The princess would have owned the letters sent to her by Prince Philip. After she died, they would normally have passed to her estate - Mr Burrell claims he was given them by Diana."
The ownership of the letter, as opposed to the words, is with the person it was sent to. The princess would have owned the letters sent to her by Prince Philip. After she died, they would normally have passed to her estate - Mr Burrell claims he was given them by Diana."
Markle's father owns the letter, she owns the words.
Markle shared the contents of the letter and the existence of the letter with friends, who had dutifully shared the information with the media. When her father learned about this, he responded by sharing the letter he owns. Markle broke her own privacy rights.
He gave it to the Mail quite openly. Probably doesn't have 5 influential friends who can access People magazine to speak anonymously for him in order to sway public opinion. I don't know if the 5 broke any laws, but they didn't apparently break any MM rules. They all were of one mind apparently, that MM would
approve, otherwise why do it?
Ah but she doesn't, she uses anonymous friends. Then you can claim ignorance when the whole thing goes pear shaped.