Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

[Boxer]

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

Good advice.

 

[rosemadderlake]

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.

A good relationship and a cozy relationship are two different things.

Bbm. This implies something without being direct.

The Monarchy has had Palace Intrigue for centuries. Harry is no stranger to that. And Meghan is not naive.

William and Kate have had plenty of detractors.

Some BRF members chose to be press magnets, too. Margaret and Diana were the most charismatic. Imo. Diana took it to the next level became savvy, as she came to know she had star power.

Some Royals are much more bland, on purpose.

It’s quite obvious H&M have their own agenda. Harry’s narrative is very tied to his mother. For all his want of privacy, he seems to have ramped up the drama surrounding his feelings for the loss of Diana, and for all his want of privacy and protest at the press, I have to wonder why is he posting videos of his son and naming a foundation after his son? And naming a day after his son? —This is the contradiction I see.

Africa film, surprise exit, tell all book, naming a business, and publishing your child’s image before they can consent are all their self driven choices.

 

[Boxer]

A good relationship and a cozy relationship are two different things.

Bbm. This implies something without being direct.

The Monarchy has had Palace Intrigue for centuries. Harry is no stranger to that. And Meghan is not naive.

William and Kate have had plenty of detractors.

Some BRF members chose to be press magnets, too. Margaret and Diana were the most charismatic. Imo. Diana took it to the next level became savvy, as she came to know she had star power.

Some Royals are much more bland, on purpose.

It’s quite obvious H&M have their own agenda. Harry’s narrative is very tied to his mother. For all his want of privacy, he seems to have ramped up the drama surrounding his feelings for the loss of Diana, and for all his want of privacy and protest at the press, I have to wonder why is he posting videos of his son and naming a foundation after his son? And naming a day after his son? —This is the contradiction I see.

Africa film, surprise exit, tell all book, naming a business, and publishing your child’s image before they can consent are all their self driven choices.

Last I heard hard work and ambition are not failings.
Seems like anything at all they do is somehow a bad thing to some people. So good they left.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Last I heard hard work and ambition are not failings.
Seems like anything at all they do is somehow a bad thing to some people. So good they left.

Dissing the family on film while representing the Royal Family, grand exiting by notifying the public before the Queen, going for a “tell all book” called Finding Freedom when supported emotionally and financially by the family, via the UK taxpayer, and when suing the press, using a royal child’s name to bankroll a foundation because they can’t use their royal titles anymore, may indeed be ambitious...

Nothing wrong with ambition. But theirs is not successful.

I’ve looked at their choices from a PR perspective and it is an utter train wreck.

And, the most glaring thing is it just seems like a superficial PR machine. For some reality show.

Philanthropy works very differently. And its spokespeople are usually very accomplished.

Had they said, eh, we need some time out to figure things out, I would have had a lot more respect for that.

It doesn’t matter, if they want to splash around and find their way, and “do good” I’m all for that, but if the mission doesn’t ring as genuine, they are going to have a hard time.
Jmo

 

[otto]

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.

Although the Judge said that Markle is welcome to initiate more lawsuits against the media for other perceived grievances, such as dishonesty, that by no means equates to the Judge signalling that she will win those lawsuits. She was simply told that each grievance needs its' own lawsuit. That's not a double standard, that is law that everyone has to follow.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

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.

Meghan could have brought a defamation case against the tabloids. That would be the correct venue for her to make arguments about the press being dishonest, having an agenda, and overall publishing stories she didn't like.

She chose not to pursue a defamation case.

Having chosen not to proceed with a formal defamation case, she can't just throw those arguments into a copyright case. She wants to, because it furthers her narrative as a victim and the media as evil, but those claims have nothing to do with copyright.

She can, at any time she likes, file against the tabloids for defamation. Again, she has chosen not to. Why? Why wouldn't she pursue defamation, and instead push those allegations into an unrelated copyright case where they were sure to be thrown out. Especially when the UK has very strong anti-defamation laws.

I don't know, but there are two things that I do know. First, you can't sue simply because you don't like negative publicity. Second, in a defamation lawsuit, truth is a defense.

 

[Boxer]

Meghan could have brought a defamation case against the tabloids. That would be the correct venue for her to make arguments about the press being dishonest, having an agenda, and overall publishing stories she didn't like.

She chose not to pursue a defamation case.

Having chosen not to proceed with a formal defamation case, she can't just throw those arguments into a copyright case. She wants to, because it furthers her narrative as a victim and the media as evil, but those claims have nothing to do with copyright.

She can, at any time she likes, file against the tabloids for defamation. Again, she has chosen not to. Why? Why wouldn't she pursue defamation, and instead push those allegations into an unrelated copyright case where they were sure to be thrown out. Especially when the UK has very strong anti-defamation laws.

I don't know, but there are two things that I do know. First, you can't sue simply because you don't like negative publicity. Second, in a defamation lawsuit, truth is a defense.

My guess is that she listens to her attorneys.

 

[Oregonmama]

Meghan Markle's A-list friends must testify in newspaper privacy case or risk damaging her chances, legal experts say

 

[Yvettea]

Meghan Markle's A-list friends must testify in newspaper privacy case or risk damaging her chances, legal experts say

From the article:
Mark Stephens, of London-based law firm Howard Kennedy, has represented clients including Princess Diana and Julian Assange. He told Newsweek Meghan must call her inner circle as witnesses or face an "adverse inference," meaning the judge could hold their silence against her.

Their identity has so far been kept a secret and Meghan told the High Court in legal papers she did not sanction their intervention on her behalf.

Stephens said the interviews the friends gave to People are the key battleground on which the case will be won or lost at full trial, either later this year or early 2021.

 

[MimosaMornings]

Meghan Markle's A-list friends must testify in newspaper privacy case or risk damaging her chances, legal experts say

“After the wedding, she wrote him a letter. She's like, 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken.
'I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship'."
———
If he meant that much to her - a short trip to see him before the wedding would have been appropriate.
At least a visit to introduce your husband to be and agree on media,security and other issues.
A monetary gift offer perhaps.
JMO

 

[Oregonmama]

Five of Meghan Markle's best friends could be called to give evidence | Daily Mail Online

They have never been named, with People magazine referring to them as 'Meghan's inner circle – a longtime friend, a former co-star, a friend from LA, a onetime colleague and a close confidante'.


I really dont think M realized that this lawsuit would backfire on her. She automatically assumed she would win . Jmo, but she went ahead with the lawsuit because she thought her status would be more significant . Doesnt work that way in the court system. Evidence wins . MOO

 

[otto]

Five of Meghan Markle's best friends could be called to give evidence | Daily Mail Online

They have never been named, with People magazine referring to them as 'Meghan's inner circle – a longtime friend, a former co-star, a friend from LA, a onetime colleague and a close confidante'.


I really dont think M realized that this lawsuit would backfire on her. She automatically assumed she would win . Jmo, but she went ahead with the lawsuit because she thought her status would be more significant . Doesnt work that way in the court system. Evidence wins . MOO

We know the Mulroney woman in Toronto approached media in April 2018 (see post and link upthread) to have an article changed to give Markle a more positive spin. That didn't go over well with Harry's people. I think we can expect that Mulroney will be one of the 5.

The issue is that her reputation will forever be in question based on whether she admits that Markle knew that the 5 friends were Markle's tool for talking to the media. They spoke to media on more than one occasion, so can it be believed that in this instance Markle could not have known or expected that the 5 would deliver her message to the media?

Even if they all deny that Markle knew they would speak to the media in this instance, Markle knew about other instances, so what was the spoken or unspoken agreement? Mulroney should want to be careful about dragging the impeccable reputation of the Mulroney name through the mud. At the very least, even if Markle didn't know about this instance of gossip, it really does leave Mulroney with a reputation as little more than an unpleasant gossiper about someone she doesn't know.

Markle does have a reputation for terminating contact with people when they are no longer useful. Have these 5 almost completed their usefulness - just need to do Markle one more favour and she's done with them?

I think former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will have a long serious talk with his daughter in law about the lawsuit.

 

[Oregonmama]

We know the Mulroney woman in Toronto approached media in April 2018 (see post and link upthread) to have an article changed to give Markle a more positive spin. That didn't go over well with Harry's people. I think we can expect that Mulroney will be one of the 5.

The issue is that her reputation will forever be in question based on whether she admits that Markle knew that the 5 friends were Markle's tool for talking to the media. They spoke to media on more than one occasion, so can it be believed that in this instance Markle could not have known or expected that the 5 would deliver her message to the media?

Even if they all deny that Markle knew they would speak to the media in this instance, Markle knew about other instances, so what was the spoken or unspoken agreement? Mulroney should want to be careful about dragging the impeccable reputation of the Mulroney name through the mud. At the very least, even if Markle didn't know about this instance of gossip, it really does leave Mulroney with a reputation as little more than an unpleasant gossiper about someone she doesn't know.

Markle does have a reputation for terminating contact with people when they are no longer useful. Have these 5 almost completed their usefulness - just need to do Markle one more favour and she's done with them?

One is a co worker from her stint on Suits, Oprah is another and JG (ex wife of BA) is another. JG has been in the news lately defending M. MOO

 

[otto]

One is a co worker from her stint on Suits, Oprah is another and JG (ex wife of BF) is another. JG has been in the news lately defending M. MOO

That's quite the entourage to deliver Markle's messages to the media over the past couple of years. I'm old fashioned, so I think they should be embarrassed for doing Markle's bidding, for getting caught in her lawsuit, and for having such poor character and judgement that they badmouthed a 70 year old man on behalf of his middle-aged daughter. Something is so wrong with that, in my humble opinion.

Unless Markle drops the lawsuit, they will be dragged through the courts. They will be challenged by clever lawyers who will not allow them to twist words and use drama to avoid direct answers. It is their reputations that will be risked, not Markle.

 

[otto]

Meghan Markle's A-list friends must testify in newspaper privacy case or risk damaging her chances, legal experts say

This is interesting, as it suggests that the five friends did something without her consent. Why is she not suing them too?

"Her lawyers' filing said she did not know they were giving an interview and was "extremely upset" they had, adding if it had been done with her consent it would at least have been accurate."​

Meghan Markle's A-list friends must testify in newspaper privacy case or risk damaging her chances, legal experts say

 

[Boxer]

I bekiwve in law school they carefulky teach that what fits the dominant

We know the Mulroney woman in Toronto approached media in April 2018 (see post and link upthread) to have an article changed to give Markle a more positive spin. That didn't go over well with Harry's people. I think we can expect that Mulroney will be one of the 5.

The issue is that her reputation will forever be in question based on whether she admits that Markle knew that the 5 friends were Markle's tool for talking to the media. They spoke to media on more than one occasion, so can it be believed that in this instance Markle could not have known or expected that the 5 would deliver her message to the media?

Even if they all deny that Markle knew they would speak to the media in this instance, Markle knew about other instances, so what was the spoken or unspoken agreement? Mulroney should want to be careful about dragging the impeccable reputation of the Mulroney name through the mud. At the very least, even if Markle didn't know about this instance of gossip, it really does leave Mulroney with a reputation as little more than an unpleasant gossiper about someone she doesn't know.

Markle does have a reputation for terminating contact with people when they are no longer useful. Have these 5 almost completed their usefulness - just need to do Markle one more favour and she's done with them?

I think former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will have a long serious talk with his daughter in law about the lawsuit.

Really glad she is away England.

 

[otto]

I believe in law school they carefully teach that what fits the dominant

Really glad she is away England.

Who is away in England?

 

[Boxer]

That's quite the entourage to deliver Markle's messages to the media over the past couple of years. I'm old fashioned, so I think they should be embarrassed for doing Markle's bidding, for getting caught in her lawsuit, and for having such poor character and judgement that they badmouthed a 70 year old man on behalf of his middle-aged daughter. Something is so wrong with that, in my humble opinion.

Unless Markle drops the lawsuit, they will be dragged through the courts. They will be challenged by clever lawyers who will not allow them to twist words and use drama to avoid direct answers. It is their reputations that will be risked, not Markle.

Ironically she is probably the last person on earth to believe she can get justice from English courts.

 

[otto]

Ironically she is probably the last person on earth to believe she can get justice from English courts.

Do you think she might have a chip on her shoulder, making it impossible for her to be clear minded and objective regarding law?

 

[Boxer]

Do you think she might have a chip on her shoulder, making it impossible for her to be clear minded and objective regarding law?

What do you think?

So glad they are away from England.