Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

[Kakidoll]

I fail to understand how a "biography" of a couple of little-to-no achievement that has been together fewer than 3 years and have not discovered the cure for cancer, or reached Mars, or have the vaccine for COVID-19 is anything more than a pamphlet.

Sadly, i think MM can talk about MM for hundreds of pages effortlessly. Just hope she doesn't break an arm patting her own back.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I fail to understand how a "biography" of a couple of little-to-no achievement that has been together fewer than 3 years and have not discovered the cure for cancer, or reached Mars, or have the vaccine for COVID-19 is anything more than a pamphlet.

I think time served is actually less than a year. May 2018 to March 2019, then she took 6 months maternity leave, and was ready to quit when she came back because no one asked her how she was. Ridiculous title.

 

[Luna20]

I think time served is actually less than a year. May 2018 to March 2019, then she took 6 months maternity leave, and was ready to quit when she came back because no one asked her how she was. Ridiculous title.

And also she wasn’t thriving.

“It’s not enough just to survive”

 

[otto]

I think time served is actually less than a year. May 2018 to March 2019, then she took 6 months maternity leave, and was ready to quit when she came back because no one asked her how she was. Ridiculous title.

Harry and Markle were in Africa on behalf of the Queen of England when they announced that their lives were not fair, and therefore they were suing the newspapers. I think that was also when Markle remarked that someone had not asked how she was after giving birth - as though giving birth is somehow unique.

Freedom is an odd choice. Freedom from what? Did Markle suddenly achieve freedom from a few months of much sought after media attention by moving to LA? Are we supposed to think that Harry needed to be freed from his family and she is the rescuer?

 

[otto]

And also she wasn’t thriving.

“It’s not enough just to survive”

It must be quite challenging for some media seeking retired actors to thrive while surrounded by servants.

 

[Luna20]

It must be quite challenging for some media seeking retired actors to thrive while surrounded by servants.

Many people would give anything to ‘not thrive’ like that. The homeless, beaten, starved, abused, unemployed, handicapped, childless, poor, uneducated, orphaned...

 

[Boxer]

Dbm

 

[Boxer]

I don't see any posts about the case.

 

[Boxer]

Judge Warby ruled the dishonesty claims not relevant to the privacy copyright portion of the case.
He also ruled the dishonesty claims may be revived at a later stage in the case.

Duchess of Sussex loses first round in newspaper lawsuit

In a ruling on Friday, Judge Mark Warby threw out some of the causes of action argued in her lawsuit, including the claim that the newspaper publisher acted “dishonestly” by quoting only certain passages of her letter.
Warby also struck the claim that Associated Newspapers deliberately “stirred up” a dispute between Meghan and her father, Thomas Markle, and had an agenda to publish intrusive or offensive stories about her.
The judge said the allegations should not be part of the case as it proceeds because he found them irrelevant to establishing if the publisher was guilty of the illegal acts cited in the duchess’ lawsuit: misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.

However, Warby said the dismissed claims could be revived at a later stage of the case.

 

[otto]

Judge Warby ruled the dishonesty claims not relevant to the privacy copyright portion of the case.
He also ruled the dishonesty claims may be revived at a later stage in the case.

Duchess of Sussex loses first round in newspaper lawsuit

In a ruling on Friday, Judge Mark Warby threw out some of the causes of action argued in her lawsuit, including the claim that the newspaper publisher acted “dishonestly” by quoting only certain passages of her letter.

Warby also struck the claim that Associated Newspapers deliberately “stirred up” a dispute between Meghan and her father, Thomas Markle, and had an agenda to publish intrusive or offensive stories about her.

The judge said the allegations should not be part of the case as it proceeds because he found them irrelevant to establishing if the publisher was guilty of the illegal acts cited in the duchess’ lawsuit: misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.

However, Warby said the dismissed claims could be revived at a later stage of the case.

Does this mean that all exhibits related to dishonesty are inadmissible to the privacy case? Makes sense. Also makes sense that there's dishonesty when Markle swears that her father has been harassed since the wedding when she has not spoken to him since before the wedding. Someone is fibbing.

The Judge defined the scope of the lawsuit, clarifying that it is not a fishing expedition and broad based complaint against media. Markle can bring up the issue of dishonesty in another lawsuit, but if there is demonstrated dishonesty at any time during this trial, she's hooped.

Did Markle really not know that her 5 friends would take her message to the media? I'd like to see Markle drag her 5 friends through the courts. They will be so pleased. Since they know that Markle was given a settlement offer that would protect them from court, and refused, they might not be so eager to say what Markle wants.

 

[Luna20]

MOO enduring massive trolling is an achievement. The more negativity heaped on, the more admirable their efforts are.

Enduring would be to keep calm and carry on. Crying victim when they are alive and well is not enduring, nor is mud slinging.

 

[otto]

Enduring would be to keep calm and carry on. Crying victim when they are alive and well is not enduring, nor is mud slinging.

The Royal Family is not allowed to cry "poor little me." They are not allowed to elicit donations and public money. Markle would have been told this prior to the marriage. I suppose her idea of modernizing a centuries old tradition in less than a year is to exploit - as though no one thought of that before.

Today, it seems that she wants to be the victim of Diana's ghost, like the time that Prince Philip's letters to Diana were released by Diana to an author. Prince Philip won that because the letters were published by a third party without his permission.

I suspect Markle wants to argue that, although she knew that her father and 5 friends would publish contents from the letter, she is like Prince Philip where she didn't authorize her father to release the letter to the media.

Regardless of whether she authorized her father to release the letter, she released the existence and contents of the letter and her father responded with the letter. She was raised by him. She knows how he reacts when provoked.

 

[Boxer]

Does this mean that all exhibits related to dishonesty are inadmissible to the privacy case? Makes sense. Also makes sense that there's dishonesty when Markle swears that her father has been harassed since the wedding when she has not spoken to him since before the wedding. Someone is fibbing.

The Judge defined the scope of the lawsuit, clarifying that it is not a fishing expedition and broad based complaint against media. Markle can bring up the issue of dishonesty in another lawsuit, but if there is demonstrated dishonesty at any time during this trial, she's hooped.

Did Markle really not know that her 5 friends would take her message to the media? I'd like to see Markle drag her 5 friends through the courts. They will be so pleased. Since they know that Markle was given a settlement offer that would protect them from court, and refused, they might not be so eager to say what Markle wants.

The judge said "fishing expedition?"
Please provide a link or is that your opinion of his ruling?

 

[Boxer]

The judge said "fishing expedition?"
Please provide a link or is that your opinion of his ruling?

Just putting up a fight is to the benefit of all the Royals.
She is the only one who has had the grit to do it.

Enduring would be to keep calm and carry on. Crying victim when they are alive and well is not enduring, nor is mud slinging.

 

[otto]

The judge said "fishing expedition?"
Please provide a link or is that your opinion of his ruling?

Was it a fishing expedition to allege that Markle's father was harassed since her marriage? She has no evidence, yet she swears that it is true. The only way to obtain evidence is to put her father on the stand and ask whether he has been harassed. That's a fishing expedition, although the Judge may not have used those words.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Just putting up a fight is to the benefit of all the Royals.
She is the only one who has had the grit to do it.

If I am not mistaken, the Royals have a good relationship with the press. And the Royals have had plenty of lawsuits with the press.

If she is angry over the coverage of HER family’s salacious, juicy, gossipy, accusations and troubles reported in the British tabloids, and People Mag, what does that have to do with the royal family?

Meghan’s fight is with her father and the DM, right?

So, I’m not sure what the crusade or the point really is about? Doing the BRF a good service?

The grit to do what? Makeover the Monarchy?

Imo, the BRF couldn’t have been kinder or more supportive of Meghan. She had the wedding of a decade, and Prince Charles stepped up for her in her hour of need.

On all fronts they gave H&M every opportunity to carve out their own vision for their roles.

Meghan’s performance in her out of Africa film with Harry was surprising. It was dishy. And in bad taste.

The People Magazine article was dishy. Who are these friends advocating for her good reputation? And dishing on her father prompting him to respond. Why? I believe it was reported they were not speaking to each other since the wedding.

How much of Meghan’s press is self generated, and in what way?

If she wins the copyright, privacy case, it will be a win for her.

By all measures the BRF tries to avoid big drama, sometimes unsuccessfully, so I’m not sure Meghan is doing to BRF any favors, whatsoever.

 

[Boxer]

If I am not mistaken, the Royals have a good relationship with the press. And the Royals have had plenty of lawsuits with the press.

If she is angry over the coverage of HER family’s salacious, juicy, gossipy, accusations and troubles reported in the British tabloids, and People Mag, what does that have to do with the royal family?

Meghan’s fight is with her father and the DM, right?

So, I’m not sure what the crusade or the point really is about? Doing the BRF a good service?

The grit to do what? Makeover the Monarchy?

Imo, the BRF couldn’t have been kinder or more supportive of Meghan. She had the wedding of a decade, and Prince Charles stepped up for her in her hour of need.

On all fronts they gave H&M every opportunity to carve out their own vision for their roles.

Meghan’s performance in her out of Africa film with Harry was surprising. It was dishy. And in bad taste.

The People Magazine article was dishy. Who are these friends advocating for her good reputation? And dishing on her father prompting him to respond. Why? I believe it was reported they were not speaking to each other since the wedding.

How much of Meghan’s press is self generated, and in what way?

If she wins the copyright, privacy case, it will be a win for her.

By all measures the BRF tries to avoid big drama, sometimes unsuccessfully, so I’m not sure Meghan is doing to BRF any favors, whatsoever.

In the RF has a cozy relationship with the press then the press will do favors.
In a cozy relationship scenario then it is a likely possibility is that a high ranking insider targeted MM early on using their insider relationship with the press.

 

[Herat]

I don't believe this court action has anything to do with the British Royal Family.

This is a private, family issue between her, her father, and the DM. Whatever the outcome, it is not a groundbreaking lawsuit.

The BRF has, indeed, taken action against UK tabloids.

 

[Boxer]

MOO then some RF are cozy with the press and some aren't. Another two RF divorces reported without without much fan fare and much greater scandals are given a pass as well.
This is a press double standard and the cause for the dishonesty portion of M's suit.

 

[Herat]

Careful Boxer, some moderators don't like us to stray from the people who are the topics of the threads....