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.

It is clear what I am saying and I think you know it.

Ah, thanks Roussette. I kept asking the same question because no one was answering!

@rubicscubicle I think you need to stop about the queen and her two birthdays - you're really not doing yourself any favours!!

@Roussette

But what about her admitting to misleading the court?

You keep asking the same question again and again Smilesy. I think there is more to come out. She should not have fibbed to the court but I would like to know more.

I would definitely like to know more too. A trial would be a great way to achieve this as witnesses on both sides can be cross examined.

@Roussette

Yes, everyone can be good and bad. No one's perfect.

Does this "everyone can be good and bad" include Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre?

upinaballoon I'm not sure what point you are making? You probably know what I think about PA.

@Roussette

But what about her admitting to misleading the court?

You keep asking the same question again and again Smilesy. I think there is more to come out. She should not have fibbed to the court but I would like to know more.

What more do you need to know ; she lied. That’s it full stop end of story.

There is never an acceptable reason to lie to the court. There might be reasons, excuses etc etc but no one least of all a member of the royal family should be above the law.

Pease if you read elsewhere out there and not just on this thread, JK is much maligned.

I am not sure it is just a case of Meghan lied.

Besides, I thought everyone is saying she is nothing to do with the RF now?

Gwrach, guess who else is a Christmas Day baby, as well as your brother ------- G. Maxwell, according to Wiki. Yes, I know, wrong thread. I'll go....................

@Roussette she has admitted it . Maybe he lied as well in which case he is as bad as her , but it still does not make it either right or acceptable .

Or we can only criticise Meghan if we criticise someone else, preferably another royal, at the same time?

You would not even find me on these threads if everyone is criticised equally.

What I am seeing now is the press, criticising MM for something, the next day is it's all praise for another royal, doing the EXACT SAME thing.

Why do people think that Knaupf lied? And what about?

What I am seeing now is the press, criticising MM for something, the next day is it's all praise for another royal, doing the EXACT SAME thing.

Which other member of the royal family has admitted lying to the court this week ?

@StormzyinaTCup

How on earth is it protecting her, when the US is confirming she is in Canada.

Well, maybe the palace don't read US media, why would they?

MM probably told them she needed a private break away from the glare of the media and this was accommodated (with appropriate security detail arranged) so when asked about her whereabouts what would you expect the Palace to say?

How about the answer that they give to important issues they should actually be correcting : 'no comment'.

All this is doing is causing confusion and MM gets the blame for 'messing about' and 'not being truthful'. The palace knows this.

@rubicscubicle

Or we can only criticise Meghan if we criticise someone else, preferably another royal, at the same time?

You would not even find me on these threads if everyone is criticised equally.

What I am seeing now is the press, criticising MM for something, the next day is it's all praise for another royal, doing the EXACT SAME thing.

For being proven to lie in a court witness statement? Which royal has been praised for that?

@rubicscubicle

Or we can only criticise Meghan if we criticise someone else, preferably another royal, at the same time?

You would not even find me on these threads if everyone is criticised equally.

What I am seeing now is the press, criticising MM for something, the next day is it's all praise for another royal, doing the EXACT SAME thing.

What other royal is currently caught out fibbing to a court and issuing apologies to said court and being universally praised 🤷🏻‍♀️

Tbh I agree their statement about Finding Freedom didn't give the whole picture, but at the same time I believe they didn't actively collaborate in the way I'd understand that (and the way it's been characterised on here in the past). I think the apology was appropriate, but the whole thing is not actually that relevant to the publishing of the letter and it seems a bit blown out of proportion given that their involvement was in fact minimal and more of a damage limitation exercise than anything else.

Reading the emails I get a general sense of things which is in line with what they've said (which is what I've tried to put across in my posts) - however I think both Meghan and Harry will need to be absolutely forensic going forwards if they're planning to make any further statements. They do get in a bit of a mess with the details, and I agree that's a fair criticism actually.

can't live with froc spelled like that grin.

I thought it was frog. 😂

@rubicscubicle

can't live with froc spelled like that grin.

I thought it was frog. 😂

Ffroc is the Welsh word, but autocorrect removed the FF and left a singular f. I don't just text/type in English so my English autocorrect gets confused on my phone and Android haven't got a Welsh language version.

Apologies for being bilingual 🤷🏻‍♀️

I don't think it's a simple lie. They stated they did not collaborate on the book and were not interviewed. As far as we know, the latter is true. The first part is a matter of interpretation

No. Collaboration is still collaboration even if you use someone as a go-between.

She also didn’t say she had nothing to do with the book just the once. Her lawyers said so in several press statements. Her lawyers argued that ANL should not be permitted to amend its defence to include Finding Freedom as their case that she had co-operated with the book was entirely false and bound to fail at trial. One of their partners actually filed a witness statement saying Meghan had nothing to do with it. Multiple statements, some sworn or in front of the court, which can only be based on what their client told them, all now demonstrably untrue.

Not misleading the court is seen as a fundamental obligation for litigants. The Court of Appeal recently considered the consequences for people who had made a deliberate or reckless untrue statement in a document used by the court and verified by a statement of truth. They warned that that consequence would usually be immediate committal to prison. Meghan of course won’t face that!

Lest you think we’ve all making a big brouhaha over nothing - US President Richard Nixon knew special agents were going to bug the opposing party’s conference. US President Bill Clinton had been having a fling with Monica Lewinsky. Neither of these things were illegal, just things they didn’t want to admit to, in order to preserve their reputations. But each of them lied about these matters on oath. Once this was discovered, both of them ultimately faced impeachment proceedings - because of the lies, not the underlying acts themselves.

She has not admitted or been proven to have lied btw. She apologised for unintentionally misleading the court which is not the same thing (although I realise there are strong opinions on that).

@Aspiringmatriarch

She has not admitted or been proven to have lied btw. She apologised for unintentionally misleading the court which is not the same thing (although I realise there are strong opinions on that).

Yes she did say it was unintentional but she would say that wouldn't she! There is no way she could forget that she did collaborate.

No. Collaboration is still collaboration even if you use someone as a go-between.

Fair enough, if that's the legal position, then it was definitely untrue.

@Aspiringmatriarch

I don't think it's a simple lie. They stated they did not collaborate on the book and were not interviewed. As far as we know, the latter is true. The first part is a matter of interpretation. If Jason Knauf had regular meetings with members of the press giving similar background on family/timelines etc then the email Meghan sent was in no way exceptional. Granted the tiara story was repeated as Meghan told it but is this what you would generally understand as collaborating on a book?

When this was discussed some time ago on here, many posters essentially thought Scobie was acting as Meghan's mouthpiece and the implication was that they were involved from start to finish. The email actually proves otherwise and shows that they didn't instigate the writing of the book, were pretty lukewarm about Scobie, and simply gave a basic background as they will have done for other media outlets etc. It comes across as if they were concerned the book might actually be hostile, and they were advised not to ask their friends not to speak to the authors in part to avoid that. At no point have they tried to suppress any evidence.

Quote from this article below: www.thelist.com/658178/did-meghan-and-harry-really-do-this-with-the-authors-of-finding-freedom/?utm_campaign=clip

However, the duchess also clarified that most of the information had been requested by her former press secretary as far back as 2016, "when he had asked me for a timeline relating to my family to enable him to engage with the media on enquiries." She added, "It is also a far cry from the very detailed personal information that the Defendant alleges that I wanted or permitted to put into the public domain."

In any case she has apologised and stated that she had no wish to mislead the court. Given that the email exchange doesn't (IMO) contain enough information or 'exclusives' to constitute breaching her own privacy and certainly makes no reference to the letter, it's of limited relevance to the court case as far as I can see. So there would be no real motivation to lie about it in the first place.

Well said !

And on here, infact FF has always been referred to as 'MM's book'.

And as state, once more, FF has no relevance to the case. It comes out after the publication of the letter and the emails have nothing to do with the letter.