The Daily Mail is using ‘Finding Freedom’ to bash Duchess Meghan in their lawsuit

Royal visit to Reprezent FM

The Duchess of Sussex’s barristers and the Daily Mail’s barristers were in court again this week for another… something. I guess it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and there also seem to be some depositions floating around. Each and every update I read about this case drives me further and further off the deep end. I honestly cannot understand the logic behind the arguments being made by the Mail. I guess they’re really just throwing everything against the wall and seeing what argument “works.” Their latest argument is that they had every right to publish Meghan’s letter to her father (and misrepresent that letter) because… Finding Freedom, a book published roughly 18 months after the Mail published Meghan’s letter! That’s it. That’s the argument. The Mail’s coverage is all over the place and they fail to even make THEIR OWN CASE sound logical. Oh, and they say Meghan plans to be in town to testify in the trial, which is scheduled to begin on January 11th (a ten-day trial). So maybe that will be her first time back to that pile of colonialist bones.

Meghan Markle 39, is suing the newspaper, it breached her ‘deepest and most private thoughts and feelings’. But the publisher’s lawyers said it was ‘difficult to see’ how she could complain about that, if she and Harry had helped with Finding Freedom which exposed their private thoughts and feelings. At a preliminary hearing, Antony White QC said in written submissions the biography ‘gives every appearance of having been written with their extensive co-operation’.

He added: ‘The book contains a great deal of detailed information about [Meghan's] personal life, including a number of passages referring to her relationship and communications with her father, and a section referring to the letter which is at the heart of this case.’ The newspaper alleged Meghan, either directly or through friends, allowed the bombshell book to use intimate details to paint a ‘favourable’ picture of her life. He added that Meghan has previously stated she had disclosed the contents of the letter to the Kensington Palace communications team and she has also stated that she discussed it with them prior to it being sent.

Meghan’s lawyers have denied that she co-operated with authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand on ‘Finding Freedom,’ which was published in August, and said that any reference to her letter in the book were simply ‘extracts from the letter lifted from the defendant’s own articles’. They also deny that she used her friends to influence press and public opinion. In a written submission, Justin Rushbrooke QC said: ‘The claimant and her husband did not collaborate with the authors on the book, nor were they interviewed for it, nor did they provide photographs to the authors for the book.’

He added that neither Meghan nor Harry to spoke to Mr Scobie or Ms Durand, who he said, ‘were not given the impression that the claimant wanted the contents of the letter to be reproduced in the book’.

Mr Scobie has also submitted a witness statement to the High Court as part of the Duchess’ case – in which he denied allegations that Meghan had helped with the book. He insisted that he has spoken to both the Duke and Duchess ‘on occasions in the past,’ in his role as a royal correspondent – but ‘never about the book.’ Mr White QC challenged that assertion and said that he wanted to ‘test’ Mr Scobie’s evidence in cross-examination, when the full trial takes place next year.

He argued that the newspaper should now be allowed to file an amendment to its defence because the book contains descriptions of her ‘relationship and communication with her father,’ with her approval. He said that Meghan had ’caused or permitted information to be provided to the authors and co-operated with them – including by giving or permitting them to be given information about the letter’.

[From The Daily Mail]

I told you it was insane. The Mail’s legal argument really is “we had every right to publish this private letter because… a year after the publication of the letter, details about the letter appeared in Finding Freedom!” It makes no sense. And whether or not Meghan in any way participated in FF has zero to do with this case either. The Mail is just trying to trap her, drag her and create content and clickbait about her.

I’m also super-curious about the fact that Meghan spoke about the letter to people at Kensington Palace. Did that happen after the fact? Was she telling her media team that she wrote a letter to Toxic Tom and he continued to lie about her? Again, that has little to do with the actual lawsuit, but it is interesting.

The Duchess of Sussex attended the opening of 'Oceania' at the Royal Academy of Arts

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

88 Responses to “The Daily Mail is using ‘Finding Freedom’ to bash Duchess Meghan in their lawsuit”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Merricat says:

    Ah, they’re trying to stall. That’s the tactic of a losing case. Ha ha. A decent judge would throw this out.

    • Becks1 says:

      I cant keep up with it because I feel like there are several different developments in one day – what did the judge say was the 6 month window? Just text messages and such? and the FF thing is a different line of defense?

    • Bibi says:

      They’re just trying anything to put out anything and create clickbaits. I’m seriously over the british/RF VS meg&harry. This is too déjà vu for me. Im not interested anymore by this drama. I wanna see whats coming next.

    • bluemoonhorse says:

      and run up the bill, thinking they will settle or back out. Don’t think that is going to happen.

  2. Becks1 says:

    The Mail just wants to get as much dirt as they can in this trial so they can publish it and sell papers.

    The FF argument is so stupid to me. Even if Meghan talked about the letter and showed the letter to people AFTER the MoS published it – how does that negate her claim? The MoS had already made it public at that point in time. At least the judge limited the time scope to 6 months for her texts and such related to the letter. But omg, like I said yesterday, this is so messy.

    I’m actually sort of surprised the Mail IS pushing so hard, because aren’t they opening it up for Meghan to get access to their sources for some of these stories? (or maybe Meghan already knows who leaked what story….)

    • Myra says:

      Their entire defense doesn’t make any damn sense, so the entire point for them must be to further play this out in the media until Meghan backs down, her friends get intimidated or they milk it for as much publicity as possible. This trial allows them to get Meghan on the stand, attempt to humiliate her and exploit her relationship with her father for media circus. Again, I really admire Meghan for taking a stand.

      To your last point, I think when the judge threw out part of Meghan’s legal arguments, her ability to smoke out the leakers was greatly reduced. There is still a possibility for her to reintroduce some parts of it later, though.

  3. JT says:

    To the British peeps on here, is there any reason why the Daily Mail can be a defendant in a case and still report on the case? Is this a normal thing? It seems kind of unethical to do so because they are clearly misrepresenting some aspects of this case. Will there be a jury trial? If so, the Mail is seemingly poisoning the jury pool with their coverage.

    • Jess says:

      Its the british media. theyve been unethical the entire time even the most “credible” of them.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m also surprised there isn’t a gag order on the case – like how can the Mail keep asking for more info and pushing these lines of defense when its clear it only wants to do it to generate more content for stories?

      • L84Tea says:

        I don’t get it either. This crap would never fly in the US.

      • JT says:

        Right! They are asking for more information, most of it irrelevant, and then go ahead and publish her responses, while framing then in a negative way. They are clearly fishing for content. Would this happen in any other high profile case in the U.K.?

      • Mac says:

        Nicolas Sandmann is suing the Washington Post and they have been reporting on the case.

      • Yvette says:

        @Becks1 … Exactly! Which is why I was so surprised that the Judge on the case has completely ignored the ‘give us more information so we can put it in headlines’ game. Yet at the same time, he publicly admonished Meghan for what he called ‘using the press for her own interests.’ The DM continues to publish every ‘discovery’ provided bit of information turned over to DM lawyers by order of the Judge. Aren’t Meghan’s lawyers entitled to discovery as well? It just all seems so incredibly one-sided. British law is cray-cray as heck to me.

      • OK says:

        Yvette…..there is no parallel to US style ‘discovery’ in British law.

        In the US you can ask anything in ‘discovery’ whether it relates specifically to the case or not. In Britain only things specific to the case can be asked about.

        Press freedoms would prohibit Megs team from asking for the DM sources as it has nothing to do with the case that Meghan has filed. Her case is all about her letter and copyright infringement, only that will be delt with as the other items in her case like the press alienating her father from her and publishing items to disparage her for clickbait were disallowed, if they had been allowed to remain in the suit then her team would have much more to get their teeth into.

        If she was suing for liable she would also have more wriggle room to demand receipts and sources but in this particular case ……no.

    • CC says:

      Would line an answer to that question also
      Its bizarre

    • Monday says:

      I’m not british but indian system got basics from uk . In indian system there is no jury only judge is final and normal people can see the trial. I think the same is for uk that’s why both the countries have show trial instead of court. I will be surprised if Meghan and Jonny Depp won the case against media because media rule in uk is mess and they can get away from anything. Most judges in uk are pro white and upper class. Meghan wining will be huge egg in face for these white judges and brf in general. Brf has full capacity to shutdown these media trail but they chose not too and how they handle tatler, andy and lazy Kate topless photo without much public attention. I think brf want this because ppl have to remember uk doesnt like family drama other than brf in public. We didnt hear any drama of celebrities and their family drama in uk . Whereas in usa it’s common and people feel sympathetic towards celebs comes from dysfunctional family. In uk it’s not that’s why brf actively engage toxic tom and samantha to publicy humiliate Meghan.

    • sarah says:

      There won’t be a jury trial. Jury trials are largely not used in English civil proceedings anymore. It will be a bench trial with a single judge (which is normal for this type of case).

  4. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    Meghan and Harry have every right to be angry at how the media treats them. I’m always appalled at how intrusive, sexist, and awful The Daily Mail is. But this case could open up so many issues in media fairness and censorship all around the world. I hope they win but I think this is an uphill battle and I also think Meghan has no clue regarding European/UK law and procedures. I also think she knew there was a high possibility that the letter would be published at some point. It was too strategic of a move to send him a letter so I agree with the Mail’s point, not that it changes anything else.

    This won’t ever happen but If it comes out before trial that William was in fact the source of leaks, he should be made to help his brother out, testify, and explain himself.

    • Belli says:

      The media still have to comply with the law, though. In this case, copyright law. It’s. It about censorship and fairness, it’s that in this case they had no legal right to publish that letter.

      • NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

        Yes but publishing and patent laws are very nuanced. It could go either way but I think this will be a lot of effort for very little payoff.

  5. Jess says:

    meghan has a physical letter published without her consent. dont fall for their bullshit because they actually dont have any valid evidence this took place. its easy to quickly disprove this.

  6. Ainsley7 says:

    Meghan stated that she told KP about the letter before she sent it and that they knew what it said. I doubt she’s lying about that. I’m not sure why it’s interesting. We already know how much pressure the Royals were putting on her to get her father under control. They were the ones who wanted her to go to Mexico and force him to the UK to shut him up.

    • OK says:

      I think the Mail is going to try to use that as proof that if Meghan showed it to the KP team she may have had a suspicion or even an expection that the letter would be released by her father at some point. They will be asking , if that was the case why did she not specifically tell her father not to share the contents or was it because she intend that the letter be published . They will twist what ever is said to suit their agenda.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    The Mail on Sunday know they don’t have a case but they’re using this lawsuit to print articles about it. There’s no gag order so they will make as much money before they lose.

  8. Snuffles says:

    This is a tactic to drag out the trial, fish for more material for click bait and to sell papers, and try to exhaust Harry and Meghan mental and financially until they drop it. But now that they have signed their mega bucks Netflix deal, the chance of exhausting them financially is gone. So now they are trying to milk this for all it’s worth and drag in people like Omid and Meghan’s friends to abuse them too. Probably doubling down on everything because they’ve been cut off.

    This is abusive but I expect this BS from the Daily Mail. What is SHOCKING me is that the courts and judges aren’t shutting this shit down. This is an open and shut case but they are allowing this to happen and exposing how corrupt they are.

    • Amy Bee says:

      You’re right about the Mail trying to financially exhaust her but that’s not going to work because they have the Netflix deal now. There was a lot of handwringing yesterday by the royal rota about the costs and I got the sense that they still have not accepted that Harry and Meghan are no longer dependent on the taxpayers and don’t have to pretend to be frugal like rest of the family does.

    • Monday says:

      I have a doubt how omid is going represent here because he works for us magzine so usa magzine lawyer will come to this trial on behalf of omid ??

      • Amy Bee says:

        As far as I’m aware, he’s already submitted a statement to court saying that Meghan didn’t collaborate with him.

      • Myra says:

        I think in this case, he would need his own legal counsel so that he can make a statement to the court that is factual and accurate to his knowledge. He wrote the book as an independent author and not as a journalist. What is interesting here is that The Mail did not seek a legal statement from the co-author, Carolyn.

      • Nyro says:

        They didn’t call out Carolyn because this is partly about race and controlling people of color. It’s Omid who is the threat, even though he’s done nothing that every other white royal author hasn’t done. He just happened to be a man of color who did not seek to ruin Meghan’s life. They figure that they can take him out while trying to destroy Meghan.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        Myra- They’re going after Omid because he tweeted that Meghan wrote the letter with it being made public in mind back when it was first released by her father. Omid has been involved with the case from the beginning. Pulling in FF is just an extension of the argument they are making about the tweet. That’s why they’re only going after Omid. They’re just tying it to the book because Omid is co-author and the subject is discussed in the book. It’s not really about the book.

      • Myra says:

        Thanks @Ainsley for the additional context. Did you mean that Omid has been reporting on the case from the beginning, rather than being involved with the case? It is the first time I hear his name mentioned in relation to the case. Omid is a royal reporter. What he tweets should have no bearing on the case as reporters (especially royal reporters) are known for conjectures. I mean, at some point everyone has had an opinion on Meghan. Doesn’t mean they should be called in as witnesses.

        I’ve also seen it reported that The Mail is arguing that Meghan doesn’t have a problem when personal details are reported about her that paints her in a positive light. I got the impression that’s why they tried to bring in the book as a defense.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nyro, this exactly. They aren’t going after the white woman; they’re only going after the POCs (Meghan and Omid).

  9. CC says:

    Smh. They’ll probably get away with it, because that the madness if the British court system.

  10. Nancy says:

    I’m surprised there isn’t at least a gag order. And while in a perfect world, FF wouldn’t have anything to do with this case, unfortunately despite their denials, they definitely had a hand in the book.

    • GuestWho says:

      OMG, were you totally shocked when Meghan called and told you that she definitely had a hand in the book?

    • equality says:

      Why would that even matter either way in a copyright case? I could publish something I personally wrote. That wouldn’t give anybody else the right to print it.

      • Nancy says:

        Good point, equality! Just pointing out that the lawyer might have a point when it comes to the “misuse of private information” claim, not the copyright claim.

    • S808 says:

      I’d hope not. A good 99% of the book is stuff you can find on the internet. MOS still broke copyright law so I’m not sure what FF, a book that came out a year after MOS published the letter, has to do with this.

    • Becks1 says:

      So you think Omid is lying to the court about their involvement?

      • mynameispearl says:

        A lot of stuff was found in the papers, some really wasn’t (ie the expression on Archie’s face when he was born). Who would have volunteered that information if not the only people to have seen Archie’s face at the moment of birth?

      • Becks1 says:

        Or Meghan and Harry shared that information with a friend who talked to Omid?

      • tolly says:

        Re: Archie. It’s a neutral embellishment, not a fact that needs to be verified (like the faff about birds twittering for Meghan). Royal biographies are usually florid and overwritten, and authors have some leeway as long as the actual facts, like that date and location of the birth, are correct. (And as long as the faff is not inflammatory or libelous.)

      • Sofia says:

        @Pearl: It’s not hard to just make a guess on what his expression might have been. And as @tolly says a lot of royal biographies are filled with lots of detail that they’ve made up. And as @Becks says Meghan isn’t going to lie in court papers. Besides her lawyers have submitted in court documents that a lot of Finding Freedom is made up – including mentioning trips Meghan never went on.

      • notasugarhere says:

        @mynameispearl, it is fan fiction on Carolyn and Omid’s part, dressing up a book that was written from what was available in the public domain. A book many of us could have written, and written better. He did not perjure himself here; Meghan and Harry were not part of the writing of the book.

    • Myra says:

      But who says the information published by Omid and Carolyn in the book are true? I like Omid but even I didn’t buy the book. I’d rather wait for Meghan’s memoir.

      I assumed that the authors either had to piece the details together from things we already knew (out in the public domain) and speaking to sources who knew the couple (friends, former employees, acquaintances etc.). You have to remember that some sources might take certain liberties with the truth, especially if they have second or third hand information. Even authors can take their own liberties in order to give some flow to the storytelling.

    • Nic919 says:

      Meghan never provided consent for the Mail to publish the letter. End of. The book published 18 months later once the letter was unlawfully published is irrelevant, even if Meghan wrote the book herself, which she didn’t.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Man it would suck to live a decent honest life for 35 years and then fall in love with a guy and because some hate that this guy loves you, they make it their mission in life to disparage your character. I often wonder how frustrated and conflicted Meghan must feel about all this. On the one hand, she’s with the man she loves and they have a healthy child it seems she’s always wanted. On the other hand, she must have moments of wishing she had taken a different path that didn’t have her constantly in the tabloids accused of all kinds of behavior that’s alien to her character.

    • Le4Frimaire says:

      @Nancy are you serious! After reading the first chapter I could tell they had nothing to do with this book. All that romance stuff was culled from instagram, the Tig and gossip columns. The book refuted some points in the tabloids, but didn’t really drag anyone. It wasn’t completely flattering either but tried to get some of their point of view out. So much reporting is how what he Sussexes do affect the royals or this person, but never about their feelings or Meghan’s viewpoint. I don’t know how anyone thought they had a hand in that book.

    • Sid says:

      Nancy, Meghan’s legal team submitted a statement to the court listing out lots of examples of incorrect/ false info in the book as a rebuttal to the Daily Fail’s bs claims that she was involved with it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Nancy, I know you desperately want to find any reason to blame Harry and Meghan. But facts are facts. They didn’t have anything to do with writing the book. Omid has sworn an oath about it, Harry and Meghan have released a list of just a few of the things that were false.

  11. Mtec says:

    I feel like I saw somewhere on twitter that the DM is now asking for private communication information from Meghan’s WhatsApp, texts, e-mail, things like that in order to “prove” she gave someone permission to mention or publish the letter, and that she did write it with intention of it being leaked or something. I think that’s all the DM wants, to prolong this trial in order to get more fodder for their trash publication and bully Meghan and everyone she knows even more. I don’t think they care if they win or lose, they just want her private information for material to “report” on.

    • Nancy says:

      Agree 100% with the last two sentences!!

    • CC says:

      If that’s true, that’s so stupid. They claim she wanted the letter public. The burden of proof is on them to show it. Not start digging everywhere. If they don’t have proof of it at the time of the publication, then they didn’t have consent and it doesn’t matter if they now happen to find a text to Doria saying “heheheh….i am going to send Dad a letter and let the whole world know that I’m an angel”.

  12. Ginger says:

    The Sussex squad is pissed at Omid for writing this book and making money off of Meghan. They are dragging him on Twitter. Why are they surprised?

    Now Meghan’s lawyers are saying some of the book is not true, etc etc. Which is proof they didn’t have anything to do with it. Hopefully this shuts up the press but I doubt it.

    • Snuffles says:

      Card carrying SussexSquad member here. I’m not mad at Omid at all. He never misrepresented what he was doing. Despite other RRs like Dan Wooten claiming he was the Sussex’s mouthpiece. He’s not. He never was. He was just one of the few who was FAIR to Meghan.

      I appreciated his book for what it was, basically a summary of the news from when Meghan came onto the scene until she left the UK with Harry and Archie in tow. I never expected to get any inside scoop. But I thought it was a good compilation for those who were curious but hadn’t been following the news closely.

      But those other RRs were CONVINCED that this was gonna be Diana: Her True Story 2.0 and were having fits about it.

      • Ginger says:

        Same here. He never said it was authorized. I still like Omid. I have no issues with him or the book.

      • Nyro says:

        ITA. It’s not his fault that being fair has gotten him labeled by the haters as the “Sussex mouthpiece”. I’m still glad Finding Freedom was written, can fiction and all. It broke the spirits of the royal reporters to see how successful It was and just how hungry the public was to read something that they felt would present Harry and Megan’s side in all of this. That book has all the right people angry. I mean, the fact that DM is using it as their defense speaks volumes.

      • Sofia says:

        I agree. This book was never going to be a “bridge burning” book people expected. I (along with a few others) said that in the leadup to the book. It seemed this book was definitely more of a summary of what happened with a lot of embellishments thrown in therefore a book for the average person rather than a serious royal watcher.

      • ABritGuest says:

        The book was marketed (at least initially) as their side of the story told for the first time and think people thought it would be a Morton tell all. Whilst Sussexes said from the start they weren’t involved, it was only nearer publication the authors said it wasn’t authorised bio. It was clever marketing

        I said from start there was no way it was a big tell all whilst Carolyn & omid are still covering the royals and then excerpts I saw read like retelling of tabloid stories but telling side that wasn’t permitted whilst smear campaign was on. Some quotes read false or like you needed to read between the lines eg alleging William saying ‘this girl’ was what caused a big blow up between the brothers.

        The best bit about the book was palace trying to preempt it & spilling their own tea & later revealing own sources for the smears eg Angela Kelly.

        It’s probably the typical royal bio that isn’t by a historian- mix of facts, guesses and fan fiction.

  13. Suzanne Hurley says:

    To me, this case is very simple. Meghan owns the letter she wrote. She is the author. Media is not allowed to publish an author’s work without their permission. Done. The MoS broke the law. I don’t understand why the judge just doesn’t end it all now. But wow – goes to show the depth of evil the MoS will go to, to destroy someone. Sooooo glad Meghan and Harry got out of there. Whew!

    • Nancy says:

      I feel the same.

    • OK says:

      The Mail will use the ‘fair dealing’ and ‘rebuttal’ clauses in copyright law as the foundation of their case.

      Fair dealing covers : Criticism, review, quotation and news reporting – Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of quotation, criticism or review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has been made available to the public. (Meghan’s case hinges on the fact the letter had not been available to the public prior to the DoS printing it).

      Rebuttal: Tricky but basically – If a document or other copyrighted medium is critical of an individual or entity, they have the right to include such copyrighted material in rebuttal. (This would be where Tom comes in, the DoS will probably say Tom contacted them in order to defending himself publically against the accusations printed in the People article, where the ’5 friends ‘ referred to the letter ).

  14. S808 says:

    This is a pretty open and shut case. Idk why the judge doesn’t demand they get on with it. She berated them about court costs yet is allowing this to go on for what?

    • sarah says:

      It’s actually not up to the judge to just decide a case like that. Unless Meghan applies for summary judgment (which as far as I know she hasn’t) then it goes to trial following a pretty standard procedure.

  15. Ariel says:

    I just keep thinking about Harry and the stuff [racism] he can’t un-see about his family, the institution he was born into, and the people of Britain who read those papers and comment with such ugliness.
    Even though he was “woke” when they met, it kind of had to blow his mind.

  16. Izzy says:

    In my most fevered fantasy, some of Scobie’s sources were Palace insiders from BP and KP, briefing against the Sussexes, and he gets to drop that bombshell in a deposition.

    • Harla says:

      @Izzy, your fevered fantasy matches mine but mine has lots of burning down included.

    • Snuffles says:

      Oooh! I like the way you think!

    • Ginger says:

      That’s interesting….

    • A Guest says:

      Um… Omid might not be the best witness. The Telegraph has some of the court filings and H&M’s lawyers have gone postal on the book. Showing how several passages may have been completely made up by the authors in order to prove that they had nothing to do with it.

      This will get very,very ugly

      • Snuffles says:

        They are only out to prove that they weren’t involved in the book. Omid can still be questioned and reveal a LOT of information about his actual sources that could expose a lot of people. Maybe even tell the stories he left out of the book. Seriously, he can burn The Firm and other RRs to the ground if he wanted to.

      • Ginger says:

        @Snuffles. I want that to happen. You can tell he is completely over royal reporting ( at least to me) If he was called as a witness he would definitely spill the tea and burn it all down.

  17. aquarius64 says:

    The trial date is January 11 2021 and the clock is ticking for the Fail. They can’t drain the Sussexes financially thanks to Netflix and it sounds like they can’t independently prove Meghan gave the order to friends to go to People. Therefore go after Omid who already said he and Durand didn’t interview Harry and Meghan. By not calling in Durand makes the Finding Freedom argument more ridiculous. Early on Meghan’s lawyer said she had no problem turning over email and text. Bad Dad is still the human shield the Fail is using to get Meghan to drop the suit. The Fail knows Meghan doesn’t want to go after her father and the full letter has been turned over to the court, parts redacted that make Toxic Tom look bad. DM is telling Meghan drop the suit or we’ll destroy your father, especially if the judge rules against us. Meghan is at the point if the letter becomes interacted and shows how bad Dad is so be it.

    The Fail is fighting this because two members of the BRF are willing to go to the mattresses with them publicly while they have other members of the BRF willing to cut deals to keep their dirt under wraps.

    • Likeyoucare says:

      Why didnt meghan lawyer force the DM who is interviewing her dad. I would like to hear why the reporter is omitting most of the content of that letter to smear meghan.
      Why only the DM keep asking meghan stupid questions. When is her turn?

  18. BnLurkN4eva says:

    Stand firm Meghan. They are going to do everything to try and bully Meghan into dropping the lawsuit but I firmly believe she should not back down. It’s not about winning or losing for the BM, it’s about controlling Meghan especially and it is right that she stand up for herself and shine a light onto the corruption of these institutions in Britain. No, not everyone will care, but I’m certain there are those who are paying attention and are silently cheering her on. This should be an open and shut case and if she prevails and sees it through to the end and if she lose, she will make a point, and if she wins she will make HER point. Win, win in my opinion.

  19. lanne says:

    All of the crap the DM is pulling now could come down on the RF in the future. It’s in their best interest to support Meghan in this instance–they have sued the media themselves at times, after all. If Meghan loses, then it’s open season on the RF. Nothing they do will ever be seen as private again. In all of their efforts to get rid of Meghan, the only people they are hurting are themselves. For god’s sake, they can’t think it’s okay that the DM published this letter. What happens when they get ahold of more of Charles’ letters? Or William’s letters? You know that any side pieces of their of those guys have kept their correspondance–emails, phone messages, etc. What’s to stop any of that from being published by a spiteful ex?

    • Chickita says:

      @LANNE

      Well, the BM already have dirt on the Royals to make $$ from by publishing that they haven’t published. To me, either way, if M wins or loses, the Media wins something in the end.

  20. ravynrobyn says:

    Am I not understanding something? Why would Meghan actually go to the UK and subject herself to getting coronavirus? This is what Zoom is made for!

    • sarah says:

      I’m pretty sure there won’t be a live trial unless there is vaccine by then. I would be very surprised, but it will depend on the judge who is hearing the trial I think and the circumstances at the time.

    • OK says:

      I’ve actually been called up for jury duty on 3rd November and I had a whole new page on covid precautions.

      Temperature checks, possible covid testing and masks, social distancing etc. The three main ones were that no public would be allowed in the courtroom , the jury may be required to sit in the court room not the jury box to maintain distancing and that many parts of the trial could take place via Visual/Audio Technology. (Obviously they aren’t including the jury in that part)

      I like doing jury duty but this time I am not looking forward to it at all. Fingers crossed I’ll be dismissed. I need everyone here to send that thought out into the universe for me.

  21. Its just me says:

    What does any of this have to do with the letter?

  22. Mariane says:

    I find the fact that this kidge allowed the mail to change their attack line intresting. It seems like the judges are giving the mail every win they could as theyll eventually rule for the duchess.
    The mail is dragging this to get more clicks/information from Meghan but theyll end up falling flat on their faces+paying hefty penalty along with 60-100k damages