Duchess Meghan is apparently willing to testify against the Mail & her father

The Prince of Wales' 70th Birthday Patronage Celebration

A few different outlets ran coverage of Friday’s hearing between lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex and the Mail on Sunday. The hearing was requested by the Mail on Sunday, who sought to get parts of the case thrown out ahead of the trial, which has not been set yet. Ahead of the hearing, Meghan and Harry’s texts to her father were made public. The text showed the rapid decline in Meghan’s relationship to her father as he seemed to cut off contact with her around her 2018 wedding, coincidentally around the time he began selling her out to any media outlet which would pay him.

I’ve looked through several articles, trying to understand what happened during the hearing. From what I can piece together, this was basically a preview of both sides’ legal strategies. The Mail will be arguing that yes, they lied and misrepresented a lot of stuff about Meghan’s letter to her father as well as willfully misrepresenting what they knew of her relationship with her father, but that misrepresentation (or “series of lies”) does not rise to level of malicious harassment or offensive, intrusive faux-reporting. Meghan’s side says duh, of course it was malicious and the papers are why her relationship with her father utterly disintegrated. From Omid Scobie’s piece in Harper’s Bazaar:

After a hearing lasting over six hours, a legal team for The Mail on Sunday chose not to argue against whether five articles about Duchess Meghan’s letter—two in The Mail on Sunday, and three on Mail Online—were dishonest. Anthony White QC (Queen’s Counsel) also chose not to argue against an “agenda” or “campaign of intrusive. . . or offensive” stories. Instead, Associated Newspapers, the Mail’s publisher, claimed that the issues raised were not relevant to the case.

The British tabloid, who admitted to having a “warm” relationship with Thomas Markle, attempted to strike out the Duchess of Sussex’s claim that nine “dishonest” articles published in the outlet demonstrate an agenda against her. However, the paper did not object to the argument that the letter sent to her father in August 2018 was reported through “misleading” cherry-picked excerpts.

David Sherborne, QC for the duchess, said, “It is the defendant’s actions in stirring up, creating this dispute that they use as justification for publishing the contents of the letter.” Sherborne added that it would be “complete fallacy” to dismiss claims that the Mail on Sunday had harassed and manipulated her father simply because she has not been in contact with him.

Meghan is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the Data Protection Act in the U.K. A source close to Sussexes confirms to BAZAAR.com that should the duchess win the case, she plans to donate damages (over and above legal costs) to an anti-bullying charity. Judge Mr. Justice Warby reserved judgment in the case and a date has yet to be set for the main trial.

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

I did look at the Daily Mail’s coverage just to see how they were going to cover being defendants in a lawsuit. I was unsurprised by the minuscule level of detail in their lengthy report, and I was also not surprised by the unsubtle abdication of responsibility from the Mail (they aimed to make it all about Meghan versus her father), or the obvious way they referred to Meghan’s lawyer as a “celebrity barrister.” The Mail also said that Meghan is “willing to take the stand,” according to said celebrity barrister.

The only minor-ish thing that I think the Mail could conceivably cling to is the fact that Meghan’s friends were likely authorized by Meghan to speak about her to People Magazine. But even if she eventually concedes that (she probably won’t), I would argue that the Mail truly has NO CASE for publishing any of her letter to Thomas, even if he claims he was merely “reacting” to the People cover story. The Mail – and Toxic Tom – want the argument to be about how he was reacting to this letter Meghan sent him and not that the mere fact that Meghan sent him the letter contradicts many of the interviews he gave for months prior to that, claiming Meghan had zero contact with him, etc. The Mail’s legal strategy seems to also involve the argument that Meghan hasn’t actually spoken to her dad in about two years, so how can *she* speak to his state of mind or blame the tabloids for the estrangement? Like… those some tabloids who were paying Thomas on a regular basis to smear his daughter using scripts written by Piers F–king Morgan. Anyway, it’s all a g–damn mess but I have faith that Meghan will get this sh-t done. You can read the Mail’s coverage here if you’re interested.

The Royal Family attend the Remembrance Sunday Service

Good Morning Britain

Photos courtesy of WENN and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

108 Responses to “Duchess Meghan is apparently willing to testify against the Mail & her father”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ali says:

    Again I can see the dailyfail getting a call from the palace telling them to settle.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Certainly! The palace does not want anything coming out regarding their operatives and the public learning just actually BP and KP work.

      I am still giving a CH a pass on this mess until more info comes out.

      • Mary says:

        How can you give Clarence House a pass when we know that the origin of much of the malicious gossip that really ramped up during the Sussexes first tour was Clarence House? Robert Jobson, given carte blanche by Charles to talk to any and all CH staff, for his biography of Charles, really gave the tabloids a lot of ammunition against the Sussexes; and not just in what was published but by what he divulged behind the scenes.

    • Yoyo says:

      The Dailyfail can’t settle on its own, the other party have to be willing to settle also.
      Meghan’s lawyers are tired of the song and dance the Dailyfail lawyers were trying to pull, dragging out the lawsuit, like Meghan was going to throw in the towel.

    • Ruby_Woo says:

      Who decides to settle? DM or Meghan? Or does it have to be a mutual agreement?

  2. Louise says:

    How can five friends get together and go to People magazine without her knowledge? why would anyone think that’s a good idea? I think the Fail will seize on this point.

    • Yoyo says:

      Meghan owns the copyright to the letter, she did not give the MOS permission to print it.
      People go to jail for perjury.

      • panda says:

        The consent requirement is not an absolute one – there are exceptions to the rule that the owner of a copyrighted work must give consent. MoS will claim it didn’t need Meghan’s consent because it published the letter excerpts under the UK’s fair dealing exception to the copyright law. In other words, MoS will claim the Meghan/Omid/People article put the letter into the public sphere and they were entitled under the fair dealing exception to report on it. I’m not saying they’ll win, but fair dealing is a defense and the author’s consent is not needed in fair dealing situations.

      • Snappyfish says:

        I have a question as I am unsure of British & Mexican law. (Origin & receipt) I have read that The Duchess has copyright over her letter. In the US you do not have copyright over correspondence. A common warning is “never put anything in writing you don’t want public” as the recipient of the correspondence is the rightful owner.

        I remember that James Hewitt sold all the letters that Diana had written him albeit after she had passed.

      • Nic919 says:

        In the UK the author of the letter owns the copyright.

    • Nic919 says:

      Even if Meghan ordered them to speak to People, which there is no evidence she did, it is still not a justification for the DM to publish the letter without Meghan’s permission. They had to specifically ask her to do that and can’t just infer she did because a vague reference was made by other people about a letter to a totally different paper.

      The media can spin all they want but that’s not a defence in the law and this is a judge alone trial so they won’t be focusing on anything but the law on this issue.

      • Snappyfish says:

        Nic919 thanks so much. I appreciate the clarification I checked & the US changed its law in 2019 to follow suit & you do have copyright as it pertains to publication..

    • MrsBump says:

      I’m surprised about that line of defense too. I don’t believe for a second that she didn’t know about it, she may not have masterminded it but she definitely had knowledge of it and most certainly gave her approval , tacit or not, to those friends.
      It would have made more sense to simply say that while she knew of the interview, she didn’t know that the letter would be brought up.
      In any case, irrespective of whether she knew or not, the publication of her private correspondence is unjustifiable.

    • Sofia says:

      Meghan’s got the best law firm in the business when it comes to copyright and libel claims. I assume that her lawyers know what they’re doing and they’ve got a defence for every point the Fail has. Her lawyer seemed to be a good job on Friday

    • Flamingo says:

      You are correct. The mail’s legal team will get depos from all five friends. It will come out that Meghan planned it and then the headline will be Thomas and Meghan are liars. Like I’ve said before, I don’t think the Mail is planning on a winning legal strategy. I think they are planning a win in the court of public opinion and if they can get confirmation that Meghan lied about the People Mag thing or manipulated the situation with her friends, any settlement they will have to pay will be offset by the huge number of views/ papers sold that they’ll get in return.

      • Yoyo says:

        You sound so sure, projection.

      • Whatsinaname says:

        Y’all are ridiculous. Somehow Meghan knew the letter being mentioned meant that the DM would go out and get the letter and publish it without her permission? That’s up there that she wanted it published because she wrote it with pretty penmanship. The matter at end is that they do not have her permission so they lost on that count.

      • Louise says:

        I agree but we are in the minority. I don’t think they will settle. This will go to trial.

      • Melissa says:

        If you look at the responses “here” at the time, we were all convinced she had masterminded the whole thing to prove to the world what a shit her father is. Comment after comment how she played them.

        I am not coming down on whether that’s what happened, just pointing out that’s how the tea was read at the time, so I see what Flamingo is thinking re: the court of public opinion.

      • taylor says:

        you’re probably right. even if they lose, they’ll get to milk it dry for stories.

      • wisdomheaven says:

        In order to depose her friends, they would have to compel People to disclose their sources—which the MoS has no grounds to do and no paper wants to set that precedent anyway because it sets them up badly for future litigation.

      • Susan says:

        The max recovery for Meghan is only £60,000 max anyway. The trial is the win for the Daily Mail. They are getting months and months of coverage out of this and will continue to for months after the trial. At most, Meghan will get a one day news blast if she wins the trial.

    • S808 says:

      What does this have to do with MoS publishing the letter when they didn’t have Meghan’s permission to do so???????? Whether or not she knew is completely irrelevant.

      • Flamingo says:

        I’m not talking about relevance, I’m talking defense strategies. The Mail’s defense is going to be getting a few small wins, blowing them up into something huge that they can sell, and then settling or hoping that she is embarrassed enough to drop it.

      • Whatsinaname says:

        That’s not a defense strategy though that the judge will go along with. That’s like saying well shoot I told some random people that I had expensive paintings so when someone broke into my house and stole them the police said, well you shouldn’t have had a conversation that was overheard about paintings.

      • panda says:

        Under UK law, there are exceptions to the rule that the copyright owner must give consent. MoS will try to fit itself into the exceptions.

      • Susan says:

        It’s actually not irrelevant legally as shown by all the legal filings. It undercuts her distress claim if she put it out there first. It also provides basis for Thomas Markle saying he had a right to defend himself and correct the record which also appears to be a potential exception allowing the Daily Mail to publish the letter. Finally, since she has denied it, if evidence is introduced that she did in fact work with her friends on that People article, it will demonstrate untruthfulness and undercut her credibility in court.

    • Sid says:

      But how does that give the Mail the right to publish parts of her letter without permission?

      • panda says:

        The concept of “fair dealing” or “fair use” in the UK allows the publication of copyrighted works without the holder’s permission in certain circumstances. MoS will say it published under this doctrine, so Meghan’s consent wasn’t needed.

        Edited to add: Specifically, MoS will likely rely on the exception for fair use for the reporting of current news events.

      • Melissa says:

        If I am reading correctly – they are saying the friends already put the existence of the letter into the public which made it of interest and could then be reported on.

        That sounds clumsy, clearly I don’t practice law.

      • panda says:

        @Melissa, I posted a fuller explanation below, at 12, with a quote from the MoS legal documents.

      • Melissa says:

        Thank you Panda – that was much more concise.

      • Sid says:

        We have fair use laws in the U.S. but I’m having a hard time seeing how a private letter would legally fall into the category of public interest especially if the letter was only mentioned by a third party (friend) in a much larger article. And then there is there is the claim that the Mail allegedly modified the letter or were selective in presentation in order to create their narrative. I don’t know about the U.K. but fair use in the U.S. gets dodgy if you try to modify the original work without permission.

    • A Guest says:

      I can see where a couple of her friends decided to do something to push back against the press and came up with the idea and recruited others. I can also see a situation where they did not tell Meghan until afterwards because they didn’t want her to say “no, don’t do it, you will make it worse or no, don’t do it, I can handle it”. A long shot, but who knows.

      I don’t remember the exact article but how was the letter brought up? Did one person say it or did they all say it?

  3. Becks1 says:

    I don’t know anything about UK law besides what I’ve been reading in connection with this story, but it seems to me that Meghan has a decent chance here.

    That said, I do think the Fail will try to settle.

  4. Whatsinaname says:

    Five friends talking to People about a letter doesn’t equal the DM gets the right to take her letter (it’s her letter) and then only publish parts of it to fit a narrative they wanted. No matter what i think the DM is going to lose the whole copyright issue of this. They had no right to publish it. And I laugh at them acting like what they did over time was not malicious. Sure Jan.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      Mark this on the wall, if the judge accepts all nine articles that the MOS & DM want struck out, MOS will settle, because worse things about the way info was aquired, will come out, and that would be scandalous for the papers. H&M will settle when DM comes abegging, and admits wrong.

    • Susan says:

      Publishing parts of it is more defensible in a copyright case than publishing the whole thing. This is the first time I’ve heard of a copyright case where the plaintiff is complaining that not enough of their copyrighted material was published. She seems to be trying to bring in concepts of a defamation claim. But as the Mail’s lawyers pointed out on Friday, she hasn’t pleaded a defamation claim so the statements about her distress and selective excerpts are irrelevant.

      • Shelley says:

        If M claimed defamation, the mail would have to give up their SOURCES! No way is the firm gonna allow that.

    • L4frimaire says:

      The Mail could have mentioned the letter and interviewed Thomas Markle without actually publishing it, but they chose not to do that. They were probably told by someone ( but who?) that they would get no push back on this, which is why they did it. As for the People magazine thing, I assume there is some legal hairsplitting going on. If Meghan said she didn’t know about the interview, that is very broad. Like she didn’t know that they were talking to People specifically or when, that they’d mention the letter, that all they got together? There is a lot of leeway in there. Will see how it plays out There was some chatter on Twitter today from some British journalists saying how they’re finally seeing how their national press was weaponized against Meghan, like it’s this sudden revelation. Why are they saying this now I wonder when they didn’t before? 🤔

      • GuestWho says:

        I’m curious about which journalists are saying that they finally see the weaponizing. Was it actual journalists or gossip mongers?

  5. Yoyo says:

    I’m laughing at the Dailyfail calling Meghan’s lawyers celebrity lawyer.
    They have a winning record against tabloids, I think, not sure, if they represented Diana in her divorce.

  6. pineapple says:

    I wish the judge could jail them for being unethical. The world would be a better place.

  7. bonobochick says:

    Meghan is not going to perjure herself, which would be the case if she authorized her friends to speak to PEOPLE but stated that she did not in court documents.

  8. aquarius64 says:

    The Fail will have to prove the contact between Meghan and her friends. It needa to show texts and emails.

    • Melissa says:

      I think they are counting on her wanting to protect those five friends – or hopes that at least one of them wants nothing to do with upcoming litigation and the publicity that goes with it and use it as pressure to get her to back off.

      • Susan says:

        If they wanted to pressure her into backing off, they would just offer her a generous settlement. They want the trial for this very reason. They will get access to her private communications with their friends. The trial will probably cost them less than it would have cost to pay her friends for that kind of information.

      • Nic919 says:

        There is no automatic right to getting private communications. I don’t know where this is coming from but that’s not legal advice a competent lawyer would give.

      • Lara says:

        How does GDPR limit the extent of discovery of personal information and private communications? I don’t know much about GDPR from a discovery/data hosting/sharing standpoint and if you have the time, would very much like to hear what you have to say.

    • Susan says:

      That’s what they are looking forward to. They will subpoena all communications between them from the time period and review them.

    • Bren says:

      I re-read the original People article, and the five friends went on record anonymously. Unless People magazine give up the names of the five friends that gave the interview, which will never happen, the defense shouldn’t be allowed to witch-hunt Meghan’s friends to make their case without actual facts.

      • Susan says:

        It’s not witch hunt. It’s called discovery. It is what any party to a lawsuit signs up for. I presume that the Mail isn’t even going to bother to seek the information from People and just subpoena people who talked about it publicly like Omid Scobie and request Meghan’s correspondence from the time period.

      • Nic919 says:

        It is not open season on her private communications. The Daily Mail would have to get a judge to order that produced. The DM would have to show that it is more than a fishing expedition. They have produced their texts with Thomas Markle because he sent the letter to the media. The anonymous friends are not a part of the lawsuit and it would be one hell of a stretch for them to be forced to send over their emails. We have internet lawyers on here posting with no clue as to what judges really look at for discovery and it is not everything under the sun.

      • Lara says:

        Though if it were everything under the sun, it would be interesting to see all of the Mail’s private communications in return.

  9. S808 says:

    this case won’t be settled cause Meghan does not want to settle. they didn’t use the BRF’s lawyers for a reason. unless they have some hard evidence about what she knew about the people mag situation they can’t prove what she knew AND it’s not relevant to the case. I don’t understand why everyone is so hellbent in believing she lied in court documents but okay. I hope everything comes out. I also hope Thomas gets thrown under the bus and driven over several times over.

  10. Whatsinaname says:

    Good grief this is just as bad as Lainey’s take that Meghan and Harry should not have informed the 4 tabloids they were not going to speak to them in the future to refute any stories, etc. At last she walked that mess back.

    The People magazine story is a red herring. It doesn’t matter what 5 friends told People. Those 5 friends were not interviewed or spoke to the DM. The DM went to Thomas Markle to confirm did he get a letter. He confirmed it and he sent it. The DM did not have permission to publish the letter.

    They DM then only published excerpts of the letter to fit the Meghan is a terrible daughter narrative that they ran with from the wedding onwards. They legally did not have the right to publish a blessed thing. I think the DM is more focused on now trying to argue that they did not maliciously misrepresent her which makes me laugh. Just go to the Buzzfeed article of the comparisons between Kate and Meghan and you got ammo right there.

    • hunter says:

      “The DM went to Thomas Markle to confirm did he get a letter. He confirmed it and he sent it.”

      Yes, because at that point the letter was his. His letter.

  11. Awkward symphony says:

    This is obviously another tactic by the fail to get her to drop it but Meghan’s team doubled down and said that she’s willing to share public funding details. The lawsuit is about the mail publishing a private letter+them harrasong her not about Meghan so it’ll never get to that point.

  12. panda says:

    People seem to be viewing the copyright issue as black and white – that Meghan had to give her consent for the letter to be published no matter what. That’s not true under the law. There are exceptions where her consent would not be required and MoS is going to argue that it published under the exception for the reporting of current news. It will definitely bring in the People article.

    Following is a helpful excerpt from the MoS pleadings (of course this is their defense, it doesn’t mean they’ll win): “The Articles properly and accurately reported matters of public interest and current events, namely the Claimant’s ongoing dispute with and estrangement from her father, and previous misleading or one-sided reporting of that dispute, and of the content of the Letter and of her father’s letter in response, in the media.”

    • Becks1 says:

      I mean, we’ve discussed that a great deal over the past few months – that the MoS is going to argue one of these exceptions apply. Part of Meghan’s claim is that there is no public interest in a private letter between her and her father.

      ETA and I think that’s part of the point of bringing up the other articles, the texts, etc. Meghan’s drama with her father was a public story because the MoS made it so.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The amount of time and effort the Fail spent coaching Sr, egging him on, paying him for his anti-Meghan stories. That will all be considered by the court.

      • panda says:

        I was simply stating what the law is with respect to copyright exceptions, not saying MoS will win.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They have no right to publish a private letter, no matter what they might try to argue in public interest. Also a key part from Meghan’s team has always been the Mail deliberately took excerpts out of context as a part of their long-standing anti-Meghan campaign. The Mail moving a reporter in next to Meghan’s biological donor, how much money they paid him, that is all going to come out.

    • Aurora says:

      Their public interest argument fails though. Legal precedent has been set that what’s interesting to the public is not the same as something being in the public interest (I.e involving their safety, health, political fallout.)

      There no way to argue that personal correspondence from the wife of a man 6th in line to the throne needed to be made known to the public. Nothing in the letter affects anyone but Thomas and Meghan. It was a private family matter.

    • Nic919 says:

      The UK courts are not going to set a precedent that the fair use defence includes publishing a letter between private individuals when a vague reference is made by unrelated individuals to an unrelated publication . The effects would be far reaching and deleterious. Current events are defined newsworthy events and not royal gossip, which only has interest to the tabloids.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      @Panda, I don’t know why you keep harping on about exception to the copywright law of UK. The law is clear, you cannot reproduce someone’s work without their consent, till the said work is 70years old. The mere mention of an existence of the letter, does not give the MOS the right to publish it and in her handwriting to boot! Also whether she gave her friends permission to talk to The People, is neither here nor there. A breach of copywright has happened. DM, never dreamt that Meghan will sue. UK law does not permit an ongoing case to be discussed in public, it will be subjudicy, Contempt of court will be issued, and if it’s discussed in public, the case will be thrown out, and the offending party would be punished. It may well be that, the friends did not want Meghan to stop them, so she was told afterwards. Either way, it’s neither here nor there. The MOS,&DM, are not there to mediate btwn Meghan and Thomas, they were there to meddle and embarass both Father and daughter. Didn’t Thomas say Meghan called him and told him about Harry, and also prior to all this brouhaha, didn’t Thomas also claim he had a chat with Harry. Meghan also said so in their engagement interview. So what’s all this about , Meghan hadn’t spoken to her father for 2yrs? Lame defence!

      • panda says:

        @Abena The copyright law is more complex than you seem to think. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and stop attacking. MoS is trying to use fair dealing as a defense, regardless of whether I or anyone here at CB thinks it’s a valid or winning approach or not.

      • Susan says:

        You say that with such confidence and yet the Mail has an entire law office defending itself on the grounds that such exceptions exist. A copyright is not inviolate. If that were the case, no student could ever write a book report. There are exceptions.

      • Susan says:

        If everyone here wants to be a pretend lawyer and make statements on what can and can’t be done with a copyrighted work, I suggest they research the interplay of copyright law and the freedom of expression under English law. Particularly the Ashdown v Telegraph case which confirmed that there instances when the copyright act must be applied to take into account the right of freedom of expression. That is the crux of this case. Thomas Markle’s right to freedom of expression may trump the copyright and that is why there is a trial. If there were no exceptions or potential defenses, Meghan’s lawyers would have moved for the equivalent of a summary judgment on her copyright claim. But they haven’t, and that’s because the Mail’s defense has to be heard.

        And I see a lot of people claiming that it is was unethical on the part of the Mail to only excerpt the letter and not reprint it in its totality. The Ashdown case actually turned on this issue and the court found that the copyright was violated BECAUSE the entire work was printed and not just excerpts. So the Mail was probably acting with direct legal advice when it chose to only excerpt the letter. Excerpting the letter was actually the legally responsible thing to do.

      • HeySanDiego says:

        Susan, very interesting point of view on this case and you’re far more knowledgeable than i am. Do you practice law? I am enjoying reading your take on this.

      • Olenna says:

        Not pointing fingers, but whether a commenter is an actual lawyer or a shithouse lawyer, I would think most people here appreciate reasoned opinions on the Fail’s defense/defence strategy from anyone.

        Here’s a quick summary of the Ashdown case, since it was brought into the discussion:
        The Sunday Telegraph published extensive extracts from a confidential record which Mr (now Lord) Ashdown had made of an important meeting at 10 Downing Street in 1997. Ashdown sued the Telegraph Group for copyright infringement and breach of confidence. The High Court awarded Ashdown summary judgment, dismissing the Telegraph’s defences including defences based on freedom of expression and fair dealing. The Telegraph’s appeal failed, but the Court of Appeal’s findings on the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression establish an important principle. The Human Rights Act can, in effect if not in legal theory, override the Copyright Act. [swanturton.com]

      • Nic919 says:

        The Ashdown case relates to publishing excerpts of a government meeting at 10 Downing and not private correspondence. I’ve just distinguished this 2001 case on the facts.

      • Susan says:

        Nic919, you don’t need to even distinguish Ashdown on its facts because Ashdown held in favor of the copyright holder, so I’m not sure what the point of that is. We aren’t arguing the merits of the case in any event. The issue we are discussing here is whether, as a matter of law, a copyright is inviolate and whether the holder’s consent is required in all cases of publication. Ashdown established precedent that copyrights can in fact be subject to the right of free expression.

  13. Aria says:

    Lol I don’t this brf will allow Meghan to take a stand because not only I will be nightmare for brf pr but also will raise question why Andy cant do the same . In this Meghan is higher rank than andy because harry. If sixth in the lines wife can testify than 8 th line andy cant ?? I think all the house will come together to solve this or this will blow up lot of house escpically kp because I think kp secretly pay for tom to speak out against her in public. Bafta tv award who William is head , gmb with piers morgan and tom markle episode won. I think either brf will pressure the judge or mail to settle with Sussex or all will be blown out of proportion.

    • Nic919 says:

      As Meghan is a named party in the action she has to be a witness, especially as she is the one who brought the action. Only mental incapacity would be an impediment. If she doesn’t act as a witness the court would draw an adverse inference and she would likely lose the case. I am sure this was discussed with the lawyers before she agreed to proceed with starting the action.

    • Melissa says:

      Andrew hasn’t been charged with anything – he is not compelled to testify in any court. It’s a travesty and should be in a headline every damn day, but it isn’t relevant to this proceeding.

      • Aria says:

        I’m not legal expert but Andy is being key witness to Jeffrey crime?? I dont know. But one thing if brf involved in way against Sussex in court ( we know they have legal power, they even threatened independent foreign press, they have the power of court in uk) brf karma will surely come. Karma just started with princess beatrice wedding. No other royal wedding in history is humiliate like this. Some of sins her father has done , some all yorks done in smear campaign. This is beginning, I remember starting with less crime to more . I cant wait for cambriges, queen and ch karma. Queen already ruined by reign by seeing with andrew. The crown was supposed to be revamping her image in history with Andy and Sussex she dug a deep hole. I cant wait when cambriges turns comes . I think it will come around them being prince and princess of wales. That title is sure cursed.

      • Nic919 says:

        Andrew is avoiding being questioned by the FBI, which has indicated that they would like to question him. Any regular person would have had no choice in the matter but Andrew is protected by his privilege and the extradition laws that would need to be enforced by the UK authorities.

        Meghan giving evidence in her case wouldn’t force Andrew to do anything because it was her case that she started and not related to a criminal matter.

        It remains grotesque that the tabloids would rather go after a copyright case and not the true abuse of power happening with Andrew.

  14. Amy says:

    Probably a really stupid question but Is the Daily Mail’s Sunday edition called Mail on Sunday. Every time I read something about this I think they do it on Sunday and I always wonder how you can file legal action or have a hearing on Sunday.

    Also I think its great she is testifying and I don’t understand the legal argument the Mail is making- if they are a newspaper how can they knowingly lie and meet journalistic styles. I mean I understand when papers make mistakes we all do but to knowingly lie feels like that would not be with the standards.

    Also curious how she will testify- will it be remote? ALso I don’t think Meghan is stupid, and it would be stupid to lie to the court and since she put in a court document that she didn’t authorize her friends to do the people article it would have to be true, right?

  15. Catherine says:

    The DM’s attorney gives me *pause* – he’s considered one of the most (if not THE MOST) talented, accomplished barristers in the UK. A double First from Cambridge in Physics and Law. If MM is found to have allowed her friends to speak to People about the contents of the letter, it will be a major blow to her case. If she knowingly made the contents of the letter public via her friends and people…..there goes the case.

    Omid and several other “outlets”, including this one, made statements at the time, that strongly suggested MM goaded her father into selling the letter (by allowing her friends to leak it to People) because she wanted the “contents made public” – I always worried about this theory from pro MM fans, supporters. Even if justified – which it was, as a PR move but not a “legal one” IMO – it undermines any legal claim for privacy, copyright laws etc.

    The DM could win on a technicality- yeah, we manipulated the contents of the letter but as this letter had already been discussed in a publication with MM’s consent, there was no reasonable expectation of copyright protection, privacy etc.

    • Ed says:

      I will say no

    • Melissa says:

      I don’t know the ramifications legally speaking – but yes, at the time we were all about how she played the Old Man and had him walk right into a trap set by her sources to People.

      As I mentioned above, I don’t know if that’s how it happened and now it being denied, but at the time the tea was she had masterminded a spectacular outing of her shithead Dad.

      • panda says:

        Also, Omid said something at the time inferring that her friends wouldn’t have spoken out without her blessing and that she wrote the letter with public in mind, to set the record straight (or something to that effect.) I wonder if he’ll get dragged into the whole mess too.

        ETA: Sorry, I see Catherine made a similar post already.

    • Aria says:

      I dont think so. Take an example of any song. Just because an artist published in public it doesn’t mean you cant use it without getting proper permission from that artist or song writer. That’s why taylor swift sue her fans when some fans make money of her lyrics by putting those song lyrics in cup and t shirt. She sue them and claim copyright theft.

    • Susan says:

      It’s more than that. She has had her lawyers file papers saying she had no knowledge. If there is any shred of evidence that’s not true, then her entire credibility is shot and if she signed an affidavit, it would be perjury.

      • Nic919 says:

        This is not how perjury works. We don’t even know if she has filed an affidavit first of all and they would do a viva voce examination under oath which is where they would get sworn evidence that could be impeached if she changed her position at trial. To date all we have seen are pleadings.

        And as to the other nonsense about summary judgment…. in most jurisdictions the courts won’t agree to grant summary judgment if there are material facts at issue, which is definitely the case here. The DM isn’t going to agree to any material facts and so it will have to be argued in court.

      • Lara says:

        Does the UK not have partial SJ?

    • Nic919 says:

      Of course the DM is going to say their lawyer is good. Why pay him if he isn’t. But the best advocacy skills cannot change the facts of the case which remain that the DM published a private letter without the consent of the copyright holder. The fair use defence they are trying for is also very weak and would set precedent on private correspondence that would upend the law. Judges rarely seek to overturn precedents. Especially on a case like this. There are no groundbreaking concepts of justice that exist here, just a tabloid exploiting a man who is easily manipulated.

      • Lara says:

        Seconded. The facts counsel is working with are shitty. Only thing potentially groundbreaking are the documents which might turn up later in disclosure (which I have recently been taught is the UK term for discovery!).

    • Chica says:

      Everyone seems to be missing the point of why Meghan’s friends spoke to People, and why Meghans statement to argue against the DM’s assertion that her Copyright claims is void since Toxic Tom released the letter to defend himself against claims made from her friends. Meghan is saying her friends who spoke to People got the contents of her letter incorrect.

      Specifically what appears in para 5 below which was sourced from https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/ :

      1. “In various interviews, Thomas Markle has claimed that he has no way to reach his daughter.
      In this week’s PEOPLE cover story, Meghan’s best friends offer a very different perspective.

      2. ‘He knows how to get in touch with her. Her telephone number hasn’t changed,” says a longtime friend. “He’s never called; he’s never texted. It’s super painful, because Meg was always so dutiful. I think she will always feel genuinely devastated by what he’s done. And at the same time, because she’s a daughter, she has a lot of sympathy for him.’

      3. “After the paparazzi photos emerged, ‘Meg and Harry were still so focused on getting [Tom] to London,” says the close friend, one of five who spoke to PEOPLE for this week’s story. “At no point was there talk of ‘Now that we know he lied, he’s in trouble.’ Tom wouldn’t take her calls, wouldn’t take Harry’s calls…’

      4. “The next morning when the car got there [to take him to the airport], he wouldn’t get in. [Later] Meg heard he had a heart attack and she’s calling and texting, even up to the night before the wedding. It was like, ‘Please pick up. I love you, and I’m scared.’ It was endless.’

      5. “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.’ Because every time her team has to come to her and fact-check something [he has said], it’s an arrow to the heart. He writes her a really long letter in return, and he closes it by requesting a photo op with her. And she feels like, ‘That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m telling you I don’t want to communicate through the media, and you’re asking me to communicate through the media. Did you hear anything I said?’ It’s almost like they’re ships passing.”

      She’s saying that she did not know they would speak about the letter. It is unclear is she’s denying knowledge from them speaking to People at all or just specifically about the letter. In reference to the letter, I believe Meghan bc, had she given them authorization to speak about the letter itself (which the DM asserts she had) why would they have gotten the details of what was said (for Meghans sake) incorrect? If you’re arguing that she hitched this plan as a trap for Tom, how does creating a loophole that weakens her case against the DM help her? Especially by having these friends report untrue statements about the letter’s contents on record? That is such a big risk that compromises her ‘planned’ lawsuit against the DM. overall.

  16. Aria says:

    Wow today so many keen Kate fans her and pretending to legal expert. This is just started on mail. I cant wait for the sun. If the noose tighten on the sun will dan Wooten give exclusively on William affair to get their failed law suit. End of the day tabloids is no ones loyalty.

  17. yinyang says:

    They are really sensatalizing this, just let her do what she needs to do. The sooner this is over for Meghan the better. The people are really hating her, but then again their are people who justify honour killings so not surprised. I think the man let fame get to his head, what the hell was he getting pictures taken of the suit fittings for a wedding he wasn’t planning to attend, or that younger girlfriend, or tag-teaming with Samantha against his own daughter.

    • Aria says:

      Keen katie stans are crazy. I even come across one in YouTube where that female defend Andy and his crime but she will be happy to pay her money but not Sussex. I mean I cant 🤦‍♀️

  18. aquarius64 says:

    What Mos needs to worry about is admitting to having a warm relationship with Markle. The lawyers opened the door for the manipulation argument. When you do interviews you are suppose to be impartial.

  19. ABritGuest says:

    Omid has got a lot of things wrong before- many of the royal reporters& experts speculate& pass it off as fact eg I saw many of them talking about Charles calling Harry from Canada when he was diagnosed with coronavirus when the Sussexes were apparently already in LA.

    I remember Omid saying on TV during the Thomas pre wedding drama that Doria was with Meghan at Windsor only for Doria to be papped in LA. I think him& few others get more info than the rest of the rota as some of the few who haven’t been really nasty but not sure he’s the insider some make him out to be.

    Whether letter is of public interest is questionable seeing as they are arguing wealth& royal status makes it of interest, but also might be hard to justify seeing as they didn’t just present an unedited side.

  20. leftcoastal says:

    What I’d like to know (or at least hear some possible theories!) is this: What in the world would motivate her father to go down this road in the first place? So, let’s say he and Meghan have had an up-and-down relationship, like most parents/children do — she calls him one day and says, “hey, I’m dating Prince Harry, we’re gonna get married, YAY!” He’s clearly a venal and terrible person, but wouldn’t that type of person still think, “wowie! My girl hit the jackpot, I get to be royal adjacent, have tea with the Queen and chill out in palaces, SHOW ME THE MONEY!” vs. “wowie, I’m going to do my level best to blow this up and fake a heart attack and get paid chump change by the tabloids and make myself look like the World’s Worst Father!” I mean, I just can’t think of a possible scenario where a semi-rational human being would choose Door #2. That’s the most interesting/saddest part of this whole hot mess. Any theories, aside from “he’s just a terrible person”?”

    • Nic919 says:

      I think that’s where information regarding what the tabloids told him will come into play. We know he’s now saying they lied to him. And considering it’s obvious he’s not a sophisticated player in dealing with the UK tabloid system, the court is not going to be thrilled with their actions here.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Amongst other glaring issues, i think Thomas has an issue with money management& think he initially got into bed with the press for easy money. If I remember right Thomas’ letter that the Fail published talked about Harry protecting Meghan from him on calls& Thomas knowing he’s asked her for money before but if she can help more to keep his silence.

      My guess is he was initially quiet about the relationship because Meghan was giving him money but then was pushing his luck so Harry said no. Then Samantha& all the ‘friendly’ reporters who were surrounding him in Mexico got in his ear about making money on the side working with the press& doing the pap scheme etc.

      His friends in the press then exposed pap scheme before the wedding. As per his original statement he backed out of the wedding because he was embarrassed& no doubt he was under a lot of pressure so may have had stress related health issue. But embarrassment doesn’t look like a good enough reason to skip the wedding so he claims heart attack which I think the Fail has evidence isn’t true& that they’ve been holding against him to get him to continue to work with them- as well as promise of more cash.

      Thomas also sees Doria get worldwide praise for her grace& is seen mingling with the royals which seems very important to Thomas. I think fact people thought he was awful at that point hurts his ego so he goes on GMB with Piers Morgan to explain his absence from the wedding, probably figuring Meghan will get over this indiscretion as sounds like they’ve had fallouts before. But all this talking to the media& we now know from court docs, suggestion media is intercepting his comms, is a step too far& he gets cut off. Sending him into a rage for Meghan’s attention& even better he gets paid a huge amount of easy money to sell her out.

      Sad really sounds like he did this all to himself.

    • essotea says:

      I hope you haven’t forgotten that he has other family members including grandchildren that do not speak to him as well. He just seems like an unreliable person

  21. Vanessa says:

    I can’t believe people think that Meghan would commit perjury if she said she didn’t know her friends were going to do a interviews I believe her . Meghan And lawyers knew that the daily mail would tried this trick with her friends honestly what exactly is the daily mail supposed to said Meghan has the rights to the letter they knew damn well that couldn’t legally publish that letter and claiming that it’s was in public interest is just completely bull no one besides those nasty racist royal reporters And the daily mail audience that’s hate Meghan gave a damn about that letter or her relationship with her father . The daily mail thought since they clearly have the palace permission to attack Meghan that she wouldn’t sue that the palace would convince her and Harry not to sue . The daily mail overplayed their hands they were arrogant racist ruthless for no reason other then to sell papers and score brownies with the other houses in the palace and now their the ones left holding the bag . The palace will protect themselves and somehow come out looking better while the daily mail and the royal reports behavior and actions will be discussed on a national level and a lot of them will get their karma and if they think having Kate and William phone numbers and being buddy with them will help it won’t .

  22. lili says:

    No hate but obviously non lawyers want to know what to expect. Sometimes justice isn’t served even though everyone knows it’s 100% truth. So please no Kate stans. I’d love an objective perspective.

  23. Thirtynine says:

    I don’t think Meghan knew about her friends speaking out either. And I certainly don’t think she would perjure herself. Aside from the fact that I don’t think she is the sort of person who lies, it would be far too risky if she could be proven to be a liar too. It would do immense damage to her reputation, and would cast a shadow over everything she has ever said or done. Meghan is a strategizer, and a thinker, but she is also a woman and a daughter. I think her interactions with her father show someone who longs to have her father close, but who keeps getting burned. That might be me projecting though. To set Thomas up with a letter and a plot using her friends and the media, all very publicly, doesn’t sound like the kind of thing she’d do to me. And I don’t think Harry would approve of this kind of double dealing if it were true, and I think in the matter of the media and her father they work absolutely as one.