Samantha Markle got a trial date for her second defamation suit against Meghan

In Piers Morgan’s Sun column this week, he suggested that the Windsors should murder Prince Harry. Piers also denied speaking on the phone to Queen Camilla, and he brought up, out of nowhere, grifter dumbass Samantha Markle. Piers wrote: “So, on balance, I think I’ll wait for Meghan’s next appearance under oath – which may come quite soon in her legal battle with her half-sister Samantha – before believing her latest denials of any involvement, direct or otherwise, in this latest book.” First of all, it’s not against the law to give interviews to a biographer. Second of all, that name-check reminded me of my long-held conspiracy theory, which is that Piers is the scriptwriter and financier of the White Markles’ theatrics. Thomas and Samantha both perform scripts written by Piers, and Piers is seemingly showing his hand here – he could be the one financing Samantha’s nuisance lawsuit against Meghan.

As for the lawsuit, it’s still the same dumbf–kery. Samantha is suing Meghan for “defamation” because Meghan said she grew up as an only child, and Meghan also said she barely knew her half-sister. Samantha, meanwhile, has spent years giving paid interviews where she trashes Meghan. Now she claims that Meghan hurt her financially. That’s it, that’s the lawsuit. The first lawsuit was laughed out of court, but Samantha refiled and here we are. The judge set a date for the “trial.”

Samantha Markle looks likely will get her day in court after a judge set a trial date in her defamation lawsuit against half-sister Meghan Markle. The trial will begin in Tampa on November 4, 2024, a judge ruled this month. It is expected to last up to five days. She is seeking $75,000 in damages.

Samantha, 59, who has long been estranged from the Duchess of Sussex, alleges that she was defamed during the infamous Prince Harry and Meghan interview with Oprah Winfrey that aired in 2021. In March, a judge in Florida threw out the suit saying that Meghan’s claims would be impossible to disprove but following amendments, the same judge appears to have ruled that there is merit to the claims.

During the interview, Meghan, 42, made references to growing up as an only child, something which Samantha resented, alleging that she had a normal sibling relationship with her younger half-sister.

[From The Daily Mail]

$75K. That’s all she wants. One, that shows that she’s desperate for Meghan to settle or just throw money at her to go away. Two, if Meghan doesn’t pay up, Samantha’s aim is just to be a thorn in Meghan’s side for as long as possible, to “punish” Meghan for not giving a sh-t about her grifter ass. It’s sort of astounding to really think about how Samantha and Thomas both sold out Meghan for relative paltry amounts of money. They weren’t even smart enough to figure out how to really “profit” from their connections to Meg. Anyway, this woman is a lunatic and I hope the court throws this bullsh-t out again before the trial date.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

81 Responses to “Samantha Markle got a trial date for her second defamation suit against Meghan”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Xantha says:

    Who’s the judge that’s even entertaining this?! Just…why?!

    • Cessily says:

      Until the court issues a ruling they have to act as if it will proceed and court calendars fill up fast and are changed often.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Xantha, Scamantha is at it again????

      When are we going find a bigger rock for Scamantha to her to STOP crawling out from underneath them???

      Please, we all know who is financing and feeding this troll. Anyone, Piss, Murdoch, PoW and his evil stepmother..……

      As if Piss Morgan could stand the pressure of speaking the “truth” under oath……

      • 1960tlm says:

        Bothsidesnow, you are so right! When will this shit show stop? It’s utterly pathetic. I’m hoping that not only does Meghan counter sue and win, but that she gets to the bottom of who is actually paying for all of these lawsuits. Her attorneys should make it hurt so bad for Scamantha that she never want to deal with Meghan again. Ever!

    • Bachy says:

      Hello everyone! I’m new here. Very happy to find a community that finds all the hate completely boggling. I have been shocked by the depth and breadth of the Meghan hate on DailyMail. The surging cultural rage, lawlessness, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia and terrorism aimed at vulnerable persons is portentous. I’m telling you: the mob is looking for a “scapegoat” to “pay” for their spiraling fear, anxiety and resentment. We have witnessed ongoing barbaric, utterly savage behavior in the Middle East. Don’t be surprised when they start erecting gallows for hanging and stakes for burning witches in western countries, too. A new witch hunt ominously burbles under our collective consciousness.There is madness afoot. Stay safe! (sorry for the length – and hysteria – of my post!!)

      • Zeus says:

        Holy cow,Samantha !! Put your head straight and try some self respect !!

      • Jenn says:

        Not hysterical at all, Bachy (and welcome!). You are 100% correct about the trends. Last month, disturbingly, a New Age shop owner in Pennsylvania was threatened in-person by her local police for offering Tarot readings (she sounded the alarm on TikTok). *Anyone* can become a target of a “moral panic” or a “culture war,” unfortunately—as we are seeing.

      • Lady D says:

        Hey Bachy and welcome. Your ability to describe is amazing. Looking forward to reading more of what you write. Also, I think you’re on the right track. The panic is as they say, palpable.

      • Bachy says:

        Jenn & Lady D: thanks so much for replying – and for the kindly welcome!

  2. sevenblue says:

    lol. If the evil half-sister is their biggest hope, you know they got nothing on Meghan. I am looking forward to the news that Samantha has to pay the bills of Meghan’s expensive lawyers.

    • Swaz says:

      I can always tell when the Royal cheerleaders are losing the narrative THEY BRING OUT THE MARKLES 🤣🤣🤣

    • Campbell says:

      I’m so tired of Yvonne’s desperate “Look at me! Look at me! They are nobody but Prince Harry is my brother in law!” Yvonne was a mother herself when Meghan was five and might have a scant memory of her half sister. Not that Yvonne was there for her own children. A good lawyer could tear her a new one in the stand and I hope she has to pay Meghan’s legal fees.

      • Taytanish says:

        My wish is for this case to go to trial, Meghan states exactly how she felt like an only child, get acquitted and end of this charade.

    • Scamuppet says:

      Me, too. (Hopefully Christopher B. will be called to testify—I’d love for him to elaborate on some of the things he had to say in the documentary.) If Scam is so upset about Meghan stating that she, Yvonne Samantha Markle Grant Markle Hale Markle Rasmussen Markle changed her name back to Markle, why was Sammy not upset when Piers Morgan said exactly the same thing?

  3. Amy Bee says:

    According to somebody on twitter the setting of the date is just a formality and the Judge still has to decide whether or not the case should go to trial or should be thrown out. I suspect it will be thrown out and I’ve always believed that the British press is paying Scammy’s legal fees. The same is happening with the heritage foundation. If they could they would be paying Toxic Tom’s legal fees for him to sue Meghan to see Archie and Lili but I guess the British press found out that it’s not possible in the State of California.

    • Shawna says:

      It wouldn’t be a terrible investment for the press if they were doing it. If they somehow managed to get Megan into a courtroom, all of the pictures and stories alone would be very profitable, I would think. Really shows you how ghoulishly thirsty they are.

    • Steph says:

      I’m so on the fence about grandparents rights. The idea that Tom could actually sue and win rights to access Archie and Lili seems like such a violation (I’m using them as an example but I mean this across the board) but to keep it in the family, had Scammie chosen to not let her parents see her kids what would have happened to them if they couldn’t sue?

      • bubblegum dreams says:

        The requirements to get visitation do not apply to Archie and Lili. Lifted this right off a custody expert’s webpage. That is why he or his handlers have not gone to court. Here’s what he has to show and he can’t. It’s not that easy to get grandparent visitation rights.
        TM must show either the following:

        One or both of the grandchild’s parents are deceased. The remaining parent determines visitation unless the grandparents petition the court. With one parent deceased, grandparents have a better chance if they have an active, close relationship with the grandchild.

        The parents are divorcing or legally separated. Grandparents can petition for reasonable visitation rights. However, courts prefer to let parents determine grandparent visitation after a divorce unless visitation is in the clear best interest of the child.

        The child was adopted by a stepparent. In this situation, natural grandparents maintain visitation rights unless those rights are terminated by a court order.

        The child was conceived via assisted reproductive technology and a parent objects to visitation. For example, if the child was conceived through IVF using an egg or sperm donor and a parent denies the donor’s parents visitation.

        To win visitation rights, grandparents need to show evidence of a close, established relationship with the grandchild. Things that can help grandparents’ cases include photos together, school records listing grandparents as emergency contacts, and testimony on the time spent able to satisfy any of the requirements to qualify for visitation rights.

      • Kim says:

        Grandparents rights laws only usually apply when there is a pre existing relationship. Someone with no relationship, loving in another country, and a legal history of a restraining order for threatening murder against another person is such a legal non starter.

      • Jan90067 says:

        Steph, as I understand it, grandparents suing to see kids MUST HAVE HAD A *PRIOR* familial relationship with the kids. Scum like Porkle can’t sue to have access to grands he’s never seen/met. (Thank God!)

        Grandparents’ Rights Law: CA Family Code 3102

        “In California, in order to obtain visitation with your grandchild, the court must find a preexisting relationship between you and your grandchild that has produced a bond such that visitation with your grandchild would be in your grandchild’s best interest.”

    • juls says:

      Piers Morgan and the RF

  4. Lady DIGBY says:

    SM is an unemployed grifter who has spent years doing paid interviews and a book trashing her long estranged half sister who rightly wants nothing to do with her. She has made money from an accidental biological connection so how dare she sue Meghan for money?

  5. FancyPants says:

    Why would he be “wait[ing] for Meghan’s next appearance under oath” before he believes her denials about this book? Does he think she would be asked questions under oath about this book that has nothing to do with the case? Pffft, it’s never going to court anyway.

    • Megan says:

      Piers Morgan is so obsessed with Meghan she should get a restraining order.

      • Thelma says:

        THIS! His obsession with Meghan is seriously scary. Can’t his wife have a talk with him?!

      • sevenblue says:

        @Thelma, doesn’t his wife have hots for Harry? She is kind of tabloid writer too. I remember reading her gushing over Harry. They are both the worst people.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Thelma, shouldn’t we quest to find WHY and how a woman on this planet would agree to marry this pathetic excuse of a “man” of all mankind?? It’s certainly not his looks, intelligence nor his personality IF he has one or any for that matter.

    • paintybox says:

      Hmm, perhaps Piers Morgan has a little something to do – somewhere – with funding Scammy so she can spend her all of her time suing Meghan … 🤔? Food for thought?

  6. Shiera_S says:

    I completely believe the British press finances Samantha and Thomas actions. For the life of me, I can not understand how one does that to their own blood. It’s sad and I praise Meghan for keeping such a positive face to the world despite all of that. I bet the trial will never happen as well

    • Steph says:

      I still don’t get Sr.’s motivation but Scammie abandoned ALL of her own kids after she got done abusing them so I’m not surprised about her.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        And yet Samantha sees herself as the victim of this cash scheming perpetual grab and it’s all financed by the “niche” Britshidmedia. They are willing to keep throwing money into this endless pit of jealousy as Scammy doesn’t want to loose her golden egg of lawsuits.

      • VADER says:

        Toxic tom is broke and bitter. He is angry that his greedy actions got him nothing in the end. He wants Meghan to pay for that. Tabloids are happy to fund his little vendetta.

  7. Tessa says:

    Sam wrote that nasty rambling book about Meghan and Sam has the nerve to sue for defamation. Meghan is only child of tom and d o r i a. Sam was a teen when her half sister was born

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Two of my siblings were about the same ages as Samantha when I was born and yeah, I grew up as an only child due to the age gap.

      • bubblegum dreams says:

        My nephew is the only child in my sister’s marriage. My BIL has three older kids from his first marriage. Same age difference between my nephew and his older siblings, as between Meghan and Samantha. My nephew refers to himself as an only child too

  8. Becks1 says:

    75k gets her into federal court for this. that’s the reason for that specific amount.

    I think this is going to be thrown out yet again.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      That amount will easily get eaten up by attorney fees so I’m not sure what Samantha expects to get out of this.

      • Becks1 says:

        If its on contingency, then its like 1/3 or 1/4 of the final amount is the attorneys’ fees. This isn’t like a personal injury case where the insurance companies are waiting in the wings to take the money and she ends up with nothing.

        That said, she’s not going to win and I have to think any attorney with half a brain cell knows that, so that makes me think it is not on contingency.

      • bubblegum dreams says:

        Attention, that’s all. It burns the white Markles asses that they are so close to Royalty and yet so far. They must have lost their everloving minds when Meghan chose to walk away from that toxicity.

  9. Escape says:

    Piers makes me so grateful for my father. I would be embarrassed beyond belief if my dad was obsessed with a person like piers is with Meghan. No offense to Meghan but he wouldn’t have a clue who she was.

  10. Gabby says:

    Whichever tabloid is funding Samantha’s legal fees is banking on making money publicizing whatever comes out in discovery. Once it is public record it’s free game.

  11. HeatherC says:

    The judge hasn’t ruled on the motion to dismiss yet. That is pending and hopefully soon. Like others have said, it’s a formality to block out a calendar.

  12. Steph says:

    On a superficial note: with the header pic, I can actually see the resemblance. It’s across the middle of the face, cheek bones and nose. I’ve always loved that part of Meg’s face so I’m a little shocked she gets it from Sr.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @steph, sorry Steph, but, no chance
      They look nothing alike

      • Chaine says:

        But they do. I have noticed it before too.

      • HeatherC says:

        It’s not unusual for relatives to share features to give a passing glance at resemblance, especially if they share the same sperm donor. I have a cousin I detest with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns….but we have similar eyes (shape and especially the color). Does the fact that she’s a horrible person change that? Unfortunately no. So Samantha does have some similar features due to half her DNA coming from the same source as half of Meghan’s. That in no way makes them close, friendly or even known to each other in any significant way. It’s a quirk of genetics, that’s all.

      • bubblegum dreams says:

        There is some resemblance. They have a somewhat similar nose. That’s about the only common feature. That’s why she dyed her hair black. With blond hair it is not easy to see a resemblance.

    • kelleybelle says:

      All I see is Doria.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      I only see Doria’s face, nose, cheekbones, eyes, when looking at MM. I noticed it especially in a photo Kaiser used from the birth of Archie. Not to say you’re wrong, just to say it might be a matter of perspective. For that matter, there’s a resemblance to Doria in Samantha’s face, but they aren’t related at all.

      Would be interesting to see a photo of Samantha’s mom, because she sure didn’t get that face from TM.

    • Jenn says:

      Yes, Steph, there is a striking resemblance, especially in old photos when S was in her teens or 20s. It makes everything so much sadder to me tbqh.

    • Kittenmom says:

      I can see a resemblance too – even in Archie as a baby. Something about the nose/lower face. Toxic Tom must have some strong genes. I see more of Doria in Meghan/baby Archie’s eyes/upper face.

  13. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    I’m not a lawyer but if this actually went to trial wouldn’t Samantha also be put on the stand and questioned by Meghan’s lawyers? If so, then whoever is pushing/paying for this lawsuit really didn’t think it through, Meghan’s lawyers will grill Samantha and will find out who’s funding this bit of theater.

    • aquarius64 says:

      Not a lawyer but yes Scam would be subject to discovery and cross examination. If the BM is funding this mess it’s assuming UK and US defamation laws are the same.

    • bubblegum dreams says:

      Just the discovery and the deposition will destroy her.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      That’s why I think whoever is behind this and funding Scammy knows nothing will come of it. They want the headlines but don’t actually want a trial (which would mean discovery in which they would be outed as the financiers of this legalized stalking).

      The whole point of this is to stalk and harass Meghan. They know they can’t win the case but they can try to make Meghan miserable and stressed. Luckily, Meghan has good legal representation so she can leave most of it up to them and go on with her lovely life.

  14. Mary Pester says:

    They were gloating about this late last night. Well they are going to be smiling from the other side of their faces soon. If Megan’s solicitor can’t get this thrown out, he should cross petition for damages against this troll, using not only the book SHE wrote, but video evidence as well, from all the interviews that she has given and bad mouthed Megan. Then she can disclose who is paying her legal fees now, and if they are willing to continue, now they could be responsible for damages awarded to Megan!!, well PIERS ARE YOU WILLING, oh and what other case has Megan ever testified under oath in Mr Morgan? Your obsession is making you somewhat deranged.

    • aquarius64 says:

      Meghan has already entered examples of Scam’s interviews going back to 2016 and two separate publications that exposed her as a cyberbully. The article from Buzzfeed News is the most damaging; the writer had email contact with Scam and published some of her tweets (when Scam claimed) were manipulated by the writer.) and was published almost two years before the Netflix series. The Court may question why didn’t Scam take legal action against them? Also, in a US defamation case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, I.e., Scam. She has to being evidence that Meghan had malicious intent, evidence of loss income due to Netflix. Saying Meghan was the cause is not evidence.

  15. Anonymous says:

    The judge hasn’t ruled on the motion to dismiss. The scheduling of trial date is standard procedure. I think the BM is so desperate to get Endgame off the front pages they are using Scammy’s shenanings as a distraction with its usual sloppy reporting. Note the Fail said “most likely” . It and the other outlets reporting thing. The Court put in scheludlings before it ruled to grant the first motion to dismiss to Meghan. Watch these outlets take down these articles with a quickness if the judge throws out the case with prejudice and Scam and her lawyers get hit with sanctions (fines) for filing a frivolous and/or malicious lawsuit and she is ordered to pay Meghan’s legal fees. And watch her benefactor drop her because a quick payout confirms she was bankrolled.

  16. Winterset says:

    Not sure in what world claiming to be an only child would be seen as defamatory. Unless there was a family business/image that needed to be maintained and where statements like that might (might) lead to financial repercussions for which damages would be appropriate. So I can’t imagine a judge looking at this and seeing where her claim comes remotely close to being defamation. It seems obviously frivolous.

    • HeatherC says:

      She didn’t even claim to be an only child. She said she was raised as an only child. She is the only child of Doria and Toxic Tom. And she was not raised with either Jr or Samantha due to the age difference. Samantha is 17 years older than her. Ashleigh is closer in age to Meghan than Samantha is!

      • bubblegum dreams says:

        Why would she let facts get in the way of her grift. She wants what Meghan has and jealousy is making her irrational.

      • B says:

        Kaiser’s photo-game is on today.
        That picture of her in the office reminds me of Ron Burgundy going on and on about how he has many leather bound books in a library that smells of rich mahogany.

  17. Lau says:

    Whatever sum of money Meghan will throw at her, Samantha will never go away. Grifters never go away, just look at Andrew and Fergie.

  18. Minnieder says:

    A FIVE day “trial”?!?! My hella messy divorce/custody nightmare only took 3. What is there to say that takes longer than 5 minutes 🤣

  19. L4Frimaire says:

    I hope we find out who is funding this cheap ho. She’ll lose but then keep selling her BS to the tabloids.

  20. girl_ninja says:

    “They weren’t even smart enough to figure out how to really “profit” from their connections to Meg.”

    This is it exactly. She’s a stupid, jealous woman who is also a f!cking racist.

    • Beverley says:

      Scammy repeatedly referred to Queen Doria as “the help”.
      Racism is one hell of a drug.

      • 1960tlm says:

        Samantha is nothing but trailer trash garbage, she doesn’t know Meghan. Everything she knows about Meghan she made up in her head. She’s nuts and a racist. She has also called Doria the “N” word on more than one occasion. She has always been a truly horrible person so this behavior is nothing new. There are very few photos of Meghan with Samantha, probably a handful at most. This shows that they never had a close relationship. After writing her book, contributed to tons of racist articles, podcasts, and television appearances in the British Media where she
        lied, smeared and used twitter to create hundreds of hate campaigns against Meghan, it just baffles me that this scumbag is still at it trying to get money out of Meghan. I am hoping that this is dismissed with prejudice, because if its not, she’s going to keep at it and keep pestering Meghan and will continue suing her. Samantha is the worst kind of scum, the kind that just never goes away. My eldest is 12 years older than my youngest. They did not grow up together because my oldest was already away at college when my youngest was in grade school. I have hundreds of photos of them together, probably thousands, because they’re close, they have an actual relationship. They are brothers, but also best of friends! My sons love each other. My oldest would jump in front of a train for his little brother. He’s told me this many times. The fact the Samantha can do all of these evil things to Meghan is beyond repulsive. Had she supported her sister and stood by her when the Royal Family & British Media were abusing Meghan, Samantha would have money and probably a whole lot more than just $75,000.

  21. Katie Beanstalk says:

    Is it just me or are Meghan’s family complete a-holes? If they want fame they could try being nice.

    • sevenblue says:

      Markles are the same as Windsors, just with no taxpayer money funding their bullsh*t. Do you think Charles who threw Harry under the bus for all these years in exchange for good PR for himself and his mistress-wife is so different from Tom? They both sold their child to tabloids. But, Harry grew up in a cult, so it will take some time for him to see it in a clear way just like Meghan did with her own father.

  22. Zeus says: that I am effectively paying for this lazy bitch to peform # uk taxpayer 😑😑

  23. Anne Keane says:

    So Samantha is 59 and Meghan is 42. 17 years difference. While I’m sure it’s possible to have a good relationship with a much older sibling / half sibling – though not this one – I can well understand why Meghan would feel she’d grown up an only child.

  24. Mytahelka says:

    Nice article would you like to get a backlink form my website? Mytahelka