Meghan Markle ANL court appeal. Thread 2.

[catinboots123]

For those that are interested - I know I am.

Does anyone know when the appeal judgement will be made.

Love that dress, it's fabulous!

Her claim is not just in copyright, rubicubicle. She also claims that the letter was private and ANL breached her reasonable expectation of privacy.

If lots of people have seen it, no matter whether they are “on her side” or not, it won’t necessarily be seen as private.

There’s also established case law here that is relevant - if you release a lot of information into the public domain that would also be private, but is favourable to you, you then can’t complain if something unfavourable gets out.

@rubicscubicle Did you quote the wrong person when you said this?
it's ridiculous to say MM has the power to influence or change any UK laws. This is a woman who is slated as some kind of 'outsider' to the RF, how could she suddenly have such power.

Because you seem to be arguing with a point I didn't make. Whether or not a person has power to influence UK laws, if they are being protected by a system of wealth or privilege then that is corruption. Which clearly is of interest to every right-minded person.

Saying that no-one should be interested in MM because she can't change UK laws is very odd.

[quote callmeadoctor]Didnt like the red dress, but this one really suited her:

dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/meghan-markle-black-white-bird-gown/[/quote]
I completely agree. Stunning.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Going back to the court case...

How much do you think is a matter of personal interpretation when it comes to the statement about Finding Freedom? As far as I can see, there was essentially one email in which Meghan gave background information for Jason Knauf to relay to Omid Scobie - is that about it or was there more? And the wording of the original statement was that they didn't give interviews or collaborate (I think). So what is collaborating? If the background information was essentially what was always provided to journalists et al and wasn't exclusively given to Omid Scobie, and was in fact information already in the public sphere, does that rise to the level of collaboration?

I would argue not really since it's clear from the emails they didn't commission the book or have any editorial control, weren't overly impressed with Scobie's accuracy, and didn't meet him to discuss it. What they provided was essentially the kind of briefing Jason Knauf would have been doing quite frequently as part of his role dealing with the media. Any thoughts on this characterisation?

I have not seen any more emails from JK. Infact it was also revealed that he held back a few correspondence back from MM. More crucially, I have not seen any correspondence with OS about the question at hand - which is the letter.

The papers made it seem like MM had a secret sit down with Scobie, ala Dianna and Charles, but there is no proof of any such thing.

Regarding the letter, Scobie was talking about a letter that was already splashed all over the media.

JK only showed certain parts of his communication, so I imagine he did not volunteer all the correspondence he had with others regarding MM.

At the first hearing in the spring was the decision made by just one person, Judge Warby? In this appeal will the appeal be allowed or disallowed by the decision of just one person, also a judge?

[quote Whatiswrongwithmyknee]@rubicscubicle Did you quote the wrong person when you said this?
it's ridiculous to say MM has the power to influence or change any UK laws. This is a woman who is slated as some kind of 'outsider' to the RF, how could she suddenly have such power.

Because you seem to be arguing with a point I didn't make. Whether or not a person has power to influence UK laws, if they are being protected by a system of wealth or privilege then that is corruption. Which clearly is of interest to every right-minded person.

Saying that no-one should be interested in MM because she can't change UK laws is very odd.[/quote]
So who is protecting MM. It's not the palace.

The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. They always have multiple judges (3 in this case, but sometimes 5).

So who is protecting MM. It's not the palace.

She's a wealthy woman married to a prince. I don't know who's protecting her as I don't want a royal family and don't pay much attention to them other than when they are breaking the law, behaving immorally, lieing on an international TV show and not being properly challenged on that or perjuring themselves etc. The fact that I can't tell you who might be doing this is no evidence that it's not happening. It's very easy to buy protection when you are a multi-millionaire.

@Serenster

The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. They always have multiple judges (3 in this case, but sometimes 5).

Thank you. So three must agree.

Meghan and Harry are being hugely protected by their status, rubicscubicle. There is absolutely no way Meghan will face any serious consequences for an admission that would be, for most litigants, hugely damaging. She won’t be dropped by her lawyers. She probably won’t get any judicial criticism in the judgement when released (normally someone who has had to apologise as she has done would). Prince Harry avoided having a “nasty” text read out in open court. I imagine Johnny Depp and Paul Bethany would have loved to have been accorded that privilege. Etc etc.

Rubrics. The story about the tiara in FF was very different and totally contradicted that which was alleged in the papers. Only the parties concerned know the full story but is it not likely that the calm Meghan and the Queen in full agreement story came directly from Meghan. If it had all been happy and peachy, it shouldn’t even had made the papers. Did we hear anything about Kate selecting/been given a tiara, likewise Eugenie/Beatrice/Sophie etc

@Serenster

Her claim is not just in copyright, rubicubicle. She also claims that the letter was private and ANL breached her reasonable expectation of privacy.

If lots of people have seen it, no matter whether they are “on her side” or not, it won’t necessarily be seen as private.

There’s also established case law here that is relevant - if you release a lot of information into the public domain that would also be private, but is favourable to you, you then can’t complain if something unfavourable gets out.

The letter is not public domain if a few individuals see it. We still have no idea exactly how many people had seen it.

It is not even public domain if you tell people without showing them. Not just anyone can access it.

That is why even at work, you may get a memo for your section in the department. You send it to a few relevant people outside the company, your PR company, your external company lawyers etc. It is not public domain until you publish it via your website etc.

If it had all been happy and peachy, it shouldn’t even had made the papers. Did we hear anything about Kate selecting/been given a tiara, likewise Eugenie/Beatrice/Sophie etc

Really, do you believe this?

I thought the row about the tiara was discounted. The Queen was quite happy with it all.

I think it was totally 'happy and peachy' and was a DM story as clickbait.
“The Queen, Harry and Meghan were all present – she tried on five tiaras and the Queen asked her which she preferred.

“Meghan asked the Queen her preference. The Queen said they all suited her and Meghan chose the diamond one, which the Queen agreed was perfect.

“Shame to see such a beautiful sweet moment skewed in media. There was no conversation about any other tiara as a preference. Meghan loved the one she wore and it remains a very special memory.”

ANL's argument is that TM had a right to reply after People magazine published an article where the 5 friends discussed the letter.
Would you have said that it was ok to publish just the bits that these friends discussed?
Why has she not sued her friends for discussing the letter without her authorisation ?
If it wasn't for that article the public wouldn't know about the letter until it was possibly discussed in FF.

I think she has quite a good case on the copyright but not the privacy. Appardtly they have hired somd knew hotshot PR folk.,

Sorry for typos.

@SallyLockheart

Rubrics. The story about the tiara in FF was very different and totally contradicted that which was alleged in the papers. Only the parties concerned know the full story but is it not likely that the calm Meghan and the Queen in full agreement story came directly from Meghan. If it had all been happy and peachy, it shouldn’t even had made the papers. Did we hear anything about Kate selecting/been given a tiara, likewise Eugenie/Beatrice/Sophie etc

If I can just correct you there, the true tiara story is not unique to the people involved. The British media blatantly told their own lies. At some point, not too long after the wedding, MM's wedding dress and a few items were on display in Windsor as an exhibition. Among those, there were also recordings being played. One of those was Harry and Meghan talking about the tiara. H says something along the lines that, I don't know why I was even there, as you seem to know exactly which tiara you wanted, and it fits perfectly with the dress. I cannot remember the specifics, but I think there was also George's outfit for the wedding among the display.

People who were at the exhibition did talk about it on sm, but they do not have a loud enough voice to shout it like the rags.

No one has any agenda against Kate and others, so I see no reason for them to twist stories, except maybe to insert a lie about MM.

I don’t necessarily think the details in Finding Freedom and the “who said what”are important. What is important is that Meghan admitted that the court was misled about the fact that she had contact with Scobie and Durant about the book. After categorically saying she had not. What do posters, who are avoiding answering this question, think about this fact?

Are you saying that there is proof Scobie has seen the letter?

Even if so, how is 7 people public knowledge, and what has it got to do with copyright if those 7 people did get permission and the paper did not?

But I thought MM said she didn't know her friends were going to publish extracts in People magazine until the day the article came out?

So did she give permission or not?

If she did then she is obviously OK for it to be in the public domain, if she didn't then she needs to be suing her friends who were the first to make it public.

You can't cherry pick and control the media like that, she is crazy if she thinks she can.

@BananaPB

ANL's argument is that TM had a right to reply after People magazine published an article where the 5 friends discussed the letter. Would you have said that it was ok to publish just the bits that these friends discussed? Why has she not sued her friends for discussing the letter without her authorisation ? If it wasn't for that article the public wouldn't know about the letter until it was possibly discussed in FF.

ANL went above and beyond, by stupidly publishing the actual letter. The friends and people did no such thing. They made references to it, infact they never even quoted direct excepts from it.

I don't think there would have been any case if MoS just did the same, told us what TM says without printing the actual letter.

It has been discussed on here a million times, BBC radio1 can discuss a new Taylor Swift song all they want, what they cannot do is play it or excepts of it without permission. Infact, see the latest teasers about

Take Adele's latest song and album. No one could just play it, till permission, so bits and bobs were put out. She has a new song, here is the title, here are some lyrics, here are excepts of the song, here is the full song. All of these were given bit by bit, and no one could just play the whole damn song without permission, no matter how much they were craving to.

Sorry @BananaPB I didn't see your last post and I've basically just repeated you.

[quote callmeadoctor]Didnt like the red dress, but this one really suited her:

dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/meghan-markle-black-white-bird-gown/[/quote]
Loved that dress! One of her best looks I think

For the general lay person who isn't hell bent on doing mental gymnastics to defend some narcissistic woman the statement

"We had no involvement with the book" means just that.

No, NADA, ziltch.

Not a email thread and then needing to apologise to a court of law for "misleading them"

The woman told a fib, she's a big fibber in a giant red froc. Just live with it 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yes, I absolutely love that dress, just fab