A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I actually meant the case as it will be heard in the fall, when the characters in question could be called to testify. But you're right it's civil.

As this is a positive thread for happy people only, can I tell you my favourite joke and how I got my name?

Prince Philip was in the bath when Paul Burrell knocked on the door and came in.

“Your hot water bottle, sir” said Paul.

“What the bloody bleeding blithering hell do I want with a hot water bottle dammit man?” shouted Philip.

“My apologies, sir,” whimpered Paul. “I distinctly heard you say Wurra Burra.”

Latest from Chris Ship on Twitter re the court case

Lawyers for the Mail on Sunday told the court: “it is a striking feature of this case that no attempt is made to restrain publication” of the information provided by Meghan’s 5 friends to @people magazine

@WurraBurra I get like 75% of it. I THINK there is a small bit I am missing tho.

It was my understating being a civil case that the witnesses can't be forced to take to the stand. So what happens to the case if they don't? I assume it goes ahead still and then would MM be challenged by the defence on why she has no witnesses?

Witness summons are the civil procedure equivalent of a subpoena, and they work the same way to compel the recipient to give evidence.

The claimant presents their case to the court first. If they call no witnesses other than Meghan herself to give evidence to support her case AN will have to make an assessment as to how well they think it has gone, and if they think it's gone terribly for Meghan they can make an application that there is no case to answer before they even have to take the time or money to present their defence. That's very rare in civil cases, however (more common in criminal cases). More normally you'd just present your defence, and await judgment in your favour.

@WurraBurra

As this is a positive thread for happy people only, can I tell you my favourite joke and how I got my name?

Prince Philip was in the bath when Paul Burrell knocked on the door and came in.

“Your hot water bottle, sir” said Paul.

“What the bloody bleeding blithering hell do I want with a hot water bottle dammit man?” shouted Philip.

“My apologies, sir,” whimpered Paul. “I distinctly heard you say Wurra Burra.”

🤣 very good!

But what WAS he actually saying tho?

So @Serenster does that mean AN can't force TM to provide testimony?

TM being Thomas Markle? It's more difficult when witnesses are out of the jursidiction, but generally a foreign authority will do what it can to enforce a witness summons issued by another court system. Often the witness will attend a court local to them for a video-conference. So, on balance I guess I'd say it's possible but not simple.

@Serenster

It was my understating being a civil case that the witnesses can't be forced to take to the stand. So what happens to the case if they don't? I assume it goes ahead still and then would MM be challenged by the defence on why she has no witnesses?

Witness summons are the civil procedure equivalent of a subpoena, and they work the same way to compel the recipient to give evidence.

The claimant presents their case to the court first. If they call no witnesses other than Meghan herself to give evidence to support her case AN will have to make an assessment as to how well they think it has gone, and if they think it's gone terribly for Meghan they can make an application that there is no case to answer before they even have to take the time or money to present their defence. That's very rare in civil cases, however (more common in criminal cases). More normally you'd just present your defence, and await judgment in your favour.

Excellent info, thank you.

It is reasonable, in an English court, for the defence to be able to question key witnesses. It’s hardly justice if that’s prevented. That’s why witnesses can be required to give evidence as pp above says. It’s not up to MM to dictate who gives evidence and it’s a requirement that AN should have access to witnesses n order to present their case if that’s what is required. It’s long been reported in the legal press that the case could be Markle vs Markle.

The case today was listed in Queens Bench listings at the High Court London and it’s being heard by Justice Warby of the Chancery Division.

A lot of very knowledgeable posters on here today!
I find court proceedings very complicated and hard to understand!
Also in awe of the typing , mines very slow and Laborious.
Often I don't bother as it would take me a week to type what I'd like to say! 😀

Although AN might settle in advance of that, I think there is more to be gained by them to defend it in court. The headlines will be far more interesting!

I don’t see why they would want to settle now, even if they felt they would lose, because I am sure they will get many more clicks on articles as a result which will generate so much revenue that makes it worthwhile. It’s very much like the Johnny Depp case in the sense that whilst he might well win (after all, nothing heard in court proved he habitually and regularly beat his wife which is the charge he is defending), what we have heard about him and his lifestyle is damaging to a number of people’s view of him. How/if it affects his career remains to be seen. Likewise, Amber Heard as a witness hasn’t come out of it well either. The headlines and articles the media made from the case were vast. The winners really will be the media and, as always, the lawyers.

As reported from the court hearing today: Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the duchess, said in written submissions to the court: "To force the claimant, as the defendant urges this court to do, to disclose their identities to the public at this stage would be to exact an unacceptably high price for pursuing her claim for invasion of privacy against the defendant in respect of its disclosure of the letter".

This is a more than a bit rich, given that it was Meghan herself who chose to bring this lawsuit, and she would have been told very clearly by her lawyers before she did so that her case would depend upon her key witnesses fronting up and giving the testimony that she is basing her case upon. You cannot willingly enter a court proceedings and then expect that you only get to disclose what you want to disclose, the process must be seen to be fair, and the courts will enforce that.

Her barrister has said “these were confidential sources who gave the interviews on condition of anonymity” but whilst I can that being agreeable at the stage of speaking to the journalist, it would be an informal agreement between source and media outlet and surely have no legal basis in a court case.

Would it be possible for the judge to rule that the names can't be disclosed yet, but they can when the court case actually starts and the five can then be called as witnesses?

I think the court can require the confidential sources to give evidence if not doing so is prejudicial to justice. I would have thought that at the full hearing they will be vital to ensure justice is done.

I think today was about not publishing the names in advance.

Good ole John

John Cleese
@JohnCleese
If you wonder why some of the British press spend more time attacking Harry and Meghan than they do criticising Andrew, the answer is :

Andrew isn't suing them

Our Press are more concerned about their power than they are about informing us accurately and fairly about reality

@Roussette

Good ole John

John Cleese
@JohnCleese
If you wonder why some of the British press spend more time attacking Harry and Meghan than they do criticising Andrew, the answer is :

Andrew isn't suing them

Our Press are more concerned about their power than they are about informing us accurately and fairly about reality

Yes but you could also argue that this implies they brought it on themselves by suing them!

Yes but you could also argue that this implies they brought it on themselves by suing them!
you could if you want to victim blame.

Also, Prince Andrew has not been charged, sued, or found guilty or liable of anything (yet). It is accordingly far, far more dangerous for the press to write about him, currently, or they will find likely themselves sued as well! When there are developments, they definitely cover them in detail (and it is pretty much always front page news when they do - you can't have missed all the "WHERE'S ANDREW?" headlines over Beatrice's wedding pictures?)

The court was told of the names because AN asked for disclosure of the names in exchanges of info with Meghan’s barristers. She didn’t give their names initially. The defence asked for them as they are crucial to their case, not hers.

There was also plenty of press at the time of the car crash tv interview.

Rightly or wrongly, by disappearing out of the public eye and not giving anything new for the press to report (never explain, never complain strategy, although he failed to follow this for the tv interview) it has helped him for the time being although I'm pretty sure he's on borrowed time now.
If he carried on giving statements in his defence or carried on working etc there would be far more press. They can't put the same story in the press everyday. It would be bizarre, so not sure what people expect really.

Just read this
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8571677/The-Markle-Windsor-Foundation-Harry-Meghan-let-slip-new-ventures-MWX-filing.html

I assume MWX stands for Mountbatten Windsor ? Or Markle Windsor?

Are you saying that AN don't know the identities of the Famous 5? Surely they must do and today is about whether those names are released in public?