Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

[otto]

I don't see anythings significant about the word "dishonesty" in the legal opinion about the ruling:

"Giving judgment last Friday, Warby struck out the duchess’s allegations that the newspaper had acted dishonestly; that it had deliberately stirred up conflict between her and her father; and that it had ‘an obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her’. He accepted the newspaper’s arguments that these claims were irrelevant, inadequately detailed or would have made the hearing disproportionately long."​

170 years on, royal privacy again at stake

 

[Boxer]

People need to pick their battles. We know that Markle wants to battle with her family, she has a long history of family conflict. In the role that she had with the Royal Family, was it wise to pick another battle with her father using the media?

I have no idea what she said in the letter, what her 5 friends said, or what her father said. I think most people could not care less about her family spat. However, people will sit up and pay attention when Markle decides to sue the media because of a letter that she did not own and which was not private at the time her father revealed some of the contents.

She owns the content of the letter, she is the victim of a lot of bullying and she left to have a better family life in the US.
I know it is hard for the English to understand that.
Also almost no one expects she has a chance
MOO have no expectations of justice from English court on the matter.

 

[Boxer]

I don't see anythings significant about the word "dishonesty" in the legal opinion about the ruling:

"Giving judgment last Friday, Warby struck out the duchess’s allegations that the newspaper had acted dishonestly; that it had deliberately stirred up conflict between her and her father; and that it had ‘an obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her’. He accepted the newspaper’s arguments that these claims were irrelevant, inadequately detailed or would have made the hearing disproportionately long."​

170 years on, royal privacy again at stake

Meghan Markle lawyers "surprised" by court decision in Mail on Sunday case

 

[otto]

She owns the content of the letter, she is the victim of a lot of bullying and she left to have a better family life in the US.
I know it is hard for the English to understand that.
Also almost no one expects she has a chance
MOO have no expectations of justice from English court on the matter.

According to the link you posted yesterday, her father owns the letter. Markle must be credited with the words.

The only issue is whether Markle's privacy was breached after she discussed the letter with 5-friends, they gave information about the letter to media, and her father shared the letter with media.

It seems that the first breach of privacy occurred when Markle discussed the letter with friends. The second breach was when the friends discussed the letter with the media. After all that, the release of the letter by the owner to media is hardly a privacy breach - it's simply adding more information to what was deliberately released by Markle.

So good to hear that Markle is finally happy. One does wonder why she moved to Canada and then the UK if she was so happy at home, but perhaps she suffers a bit of "grass is greener" thing.

Is the assumption that "UK courts are corrupt" when Markle loses the lawsuit?

 

[Oregonmama]

According to the link you posted yesterday, her father owns the letter. Markle must be credited with the words.

The only issue is whether Markle's privacy was breached after she discussed the letter with 5-friends, they gave information about the letter to media, and her father shared the letter with media.

It seems that the first breach of privacy occurred when Markle discussed the letter with friends. The second breach was when the friends discussed the letter with the media. After all that, the release of the letter by the owner to media is hardly a privacy breach - it's simply adding more information to what was deliberately released by Markle.

So good to hear that Markle is finally happy. One does wonder why she moved to Canada and then the UK if she was so happy at home, but perhaps she suffers a bit of "grass is greener" thing.

Is the assumption that "UK courts are corrupt" when Markle loses the lawsuit?

Breaching her own privacy is her history. She always has a spokesperson relaying her feelings to the media for many reasons.

 

[Oregonmama]

Markle vs Markle | National Review

But how would Meghan know that her father had been harassed if she isn’t in contact with him? Last week, Justice Warby noted this and other inconsistencies when he “struck out” significant parts of Meghan’s case as “irrelevant,” “inadequate” and “impermissibly vague” ahead of trial.

 

[otto]

Meghan Markle lawyers "surprised" by court decision in Mail on Sunday case

Markle's legal team made legal mistakes that were articulated by the Judge in the ruling. If Markle instructed the lawyers to do something, they would do it because they get paid regardless of the outcome. That's how it works with lawyers. Because she rejected the settlement offer, she has the privilege of paying for her lawyers and the lawyers for the media.

 

[Oregonmama]

Markle's legal team made legal mistakes that were articulated by the Judge in the ruling. If Markle instructed the lawyers to do something, they would do it because they get paid regardless of the outcome. That's how it works with lawyers. Because she rejected the settlement offer, she has the privilege of paying for her lawyers and the lawyers for the media.

I found it significant that Princess Diana used the same law firm as well. This is a PR disaster and a mistake that she pushed through this lawsuit. Especially during our health crisis after the paper said they would settle out of court. Too many hidden agendas on her part for PR
JMO

 

[Boxer]

According to the link you posted yesterday, her father owns the letter. Markle must be credited with the words.

The only issue is whether Markle's privacy was breached after she discussed the letter with 5-friends, they gave information about the letter to media, and her father shared the letter with media.

It seems that the first breach of privacy occurred when Markle discussed the letter with friends. The second breach was when the friends discussed the letter with the media. After all that, the release of the letter by the owner to media is hardly a privacy breach - it's simply adding more information to what was deliberately released by Markle.

So good to hear that Markle is finally happy. One does wonder why she moved to Canada and then the UK if she was so happy at home, but perhaps she suffers a bit of "grass is greener" thing.

Is the assumption that "UK courts are corrupt" when Markle loses the lawsuit?

How about I ask you a question? Do you think she got a fair shake?

 

[otto]

How about I ask you a question? Do you think she got a fair shake?

Not sure what you mean.

Do I respect the legal ruling in the UK?
Sure do.
Why wouldn't I?

 

[Boxer]

Not sure what you mean.

Do I respect the legal ruling in the UK?
Sure do.
Why wouldn't I?

So your answer is that she has had and will get a fair shake?

 

[otto]

So your answer is that she has had and will get a fair shake?

Courtrooms are not corrupt. Judges are not corrupt. Legal decisions are not pre-determined. Legal systems are unique to each country.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the position that Markle and the Media did not receive a carefully reasoned legal decision?

 

[Boxer]

Courtrooms are not corrupt. Judges are not corrupt. Legal decisions are not pre-determined. Legal systems are unique to each country.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the position that Markle and the Media did not receive a carefully reasoned legal decision?

Do you think MM is getting a fair shake?

 

[otto]

Do you think MM is getting a fair shake?

Markle is not a special person. She married a British prince who has since withdrawn from all royal duties. She lives in the USA and is pursuing some sort of unspecified goal to get rich.

Everyone is equal under the law.

What does "fair shake" mean?

 

[Kakidoll]

There is no such thing as bad press for an actor. She wants to continue to be in the news and be relevant at any cost. She's a middle aged ACTRESS trying to be seen as a victim. She found the perfect role. MOO

 

[otto]

There is no such thing as bad press for an actor. She wants to continue to be in the news and be relevant at any cost. She's a middle aged ACTRESS trying to be seen as a victim. She found the perfect role. MOO

This "victim" thing is getting quite tired, isn't it.

Markle spilled the beans about the letter to her friends. Those friends, who always spill the beans to the media, spilled the letter beans to the media. Now we're supposed to think that the media is picking on her.

Having been raised by her father, she should have expected that when she lashes out at him, he will set the record straight with evidence - as he has done in the past. He set the record straight with the letter that is his property. Good for him.

 

[Boxer]

In law, for example, while 76% of top judges attended private schools in the late 1980s, that went down to 75% by the mid-00s and is now at 74%.

Markle is not a special person. She married a British prince who has since withdrawn from all royal duties. She lives in the USA and is pursuing some sort of unspecified goal to get rich.

Everyone is equal under the law.

What does "fair shake" mean?

A fair shake means afforded the same consideration as others. Especially those closer to the English ideal of <modsnip> publicly schooled with long term ruling
class connections.

MOO glad HW and MM left, and wish them well.

 

[otto]

In law, for example, while 76% of top judges attended private schools in the late 1980s, that went down to 75% by the mid-00s and is now at 74%.

A fair shake means afforded the same consideration as others. Especially those closer to the English ideal of <modsnip> publicly schooled with long term ruling
class connections.

MOO glad HW and MM left, and wish them well.

I don't understand any of that. Courts base decisions on law.

 

[Boxer]

I don't understand any of that. Courts base decisions on law.

May I ask what your "verified expert" expertise is?

 

[Yellow Rose]

Photographer slams Meghan Markle for rude 'diva' behaviour | Daily Mail Online