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.

At some point, she was probably told these were the mildest journalists in the UK, and would not twist her words

I’m not sure what your point is then. You said she was “uneasy”, I agreed that she was at first but over several emails she changed her mind. I didn’t say she had met him. And again, Harry was keen to pass details to Scobie and Durant via Knauf or in person if necessary.

That would have covered it and we would have all gone

Sorry, but I do not believe this once. Saying we did not collaborate, but infact we did would have given the case to the MoS on a silver platter in that they would have made that is what they case is all about. As they are doing now.

I think going over it, MM will have told them that she never spoke to Omid, nor instructed her friends. I suspect in the case of her sending emails to her office, she probably said, maybe not sure. When asked, ok lets see the correspondence she would have said I don't have any as it gets deleted.
Her team would have not persuaded it further as it has nothing to do with the case. What they did not count on was that the palace would send Jason over with all the deleted info to help the MoS.

Maybe that is why it took a while for Jason to come over. He thought MM would lose and now had to retrieve the messages. Turns out, he is even showing half of the full correspondence anyway.

@Roussette

I haven't seen any of those

You are joking surely.... years of threads, hundreds of them and none of it was unwarranted criticism?
Threads were deleted by the dozen, hundreds of posts deleted because of the unpleasantness and insults.

Just reacting... yeah right... I don't talk about my worst enemy like that

I'm talking about on this thread. You are right that people have said horrid things about MM. They have said horrid things about most of the royals

If I was a judge in such a case I would throw the lot out once the plaintiff had not provided an accurate statement. Whether it was a mistake or deliberate lies.

@rubicscubicle

That would have covered it and we would have all gone

Sorry, but I do not believe this once. Saying we did not collaborate, but infact we did would have given the case to the MoS on a silver platter in that they would have made that is what they case is all about. As they are doing now.

I think going over it, MM will have told them that she never spoke to Omid, nor instructed her friends. I suspect in the case of her sending emails to her office, she probably said, maybe not sure. When asked, ok lets see the correspondence she would have said I don't have any as it gets deleted.
Her team would have not persuaded it further as it has nothing to do with the case. What they did not count on was that the palace would send Jason over with all the deleted info to help the MoS.

Maybe that is why it took a while for Jason to come over. He thought MM would lose and now had to retrieve the messages. Turns out, he is even showing half of the full correspondence anyway.

You don't believe telling the truth from the offset that MM has given some personal family background information to the press wouldn't have made a difference?

Her defence then could have had the truth and when the emails presented said "M has always said she has given personal family information to the press" which was the truth.

JK isn't the villain in this as much as you want, he's exposed the truth. M and H gave personal information to the press, specifically the writers of FF.

Instead they lied and said they had no collaboration, which they clearly did. Hence she (and he) lied to the court and swore they had no collaboration.

The truth is important. Especially in a court of law.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Jason was never subpoenaed, he voluntarily went to MoS with information

This is interesting. What does that mean about his NDA? Would it have been voluntarily waived?

Jason was employed by KP before MM came along. So he would have signed his NDA back 7yrs ago. Either :

• The NDA simply did not include H&M, and he would have had to resign a revised one when H&M came along.
• or the NDA automatically included everyone at KP, even members that come later.

Since he just voluntarily gave the info, he was somehow not legally contracted to H&M.

So he was either released by KP to go ahead with this, or sent.

The questions as well are that the info he is using belongs to the palace as his place of work, rather than personal. Lets say the admin was just shoddy when he was employed, will KP release the same info to MM team, so that they avoid JK giving half info as he has been doing?

that resign, sounds odd, re-sign or sign again.

I'm really not getting why JK coming out with the truth voluntary or not is a bad thing?

If a court case was going on and I had pertenant information I'd volunteer it. Because a court of law relies on the truth.

Covering up lies , regardless of NDA's or employers is never ever a good moral standpoint.

@Gwrach

I'm really not getting why JK coming out with the truth voluntary or not is a bad thing?

If a court case was going on and I had pertenant information I'd volunteer it. Because a court of law relies on the truth.

Covering up lies , regardless of NDA's or employers is never ever a good moral standpoint.

FF should never even have been mentioned as part of the proceedings. Even when Jason presents it, he fails to show a direct link to the letter.

As far as I can find out by Googling, Samantha Markle has been married twice. There are two children from the first marriage and one from the second. The phraseology makes it sound as if she had three children from three different fathers

As it was probably meant to ... just as "reminders" could have been chosen to suggest Knauf already knew all the detail and therefore the messages don't really count as a briefing

The mental gymnastics really are quite something, but I've never understood what's wrong with accepting that Meghan's suffered some dreadful behaviour and that she's capable of being calculating, dishonest and all the rest

The two aren't mutually exclusive, and pointing out either or both really doesn't have to involve "taking sides"

Perhaps an NDA does not cover lying to a court. I doubt it would cover a statement in a criminal court either.

I'm talking about on this thread. You are right that people have said horrid things about MM. They have said horrid things about most of the royals

Not approaching anywhere near the massive quantity of threads about MM. But I get your point about this thread

FF should never even have been mentioned as part of the proceedings. Even when Jason presents it, he fails to show a direct link to the letter

No there is no direct link, but I have linked information previously which shows that providing information to Finding Freedom, having denied doing so, is pertinent to the question of whether privacy could be expected in relation to the letter.

calculating, dishonest and all the rest

You see, I find these labels problematic.

Just on this thread there was talk about the palace lying. This was somehow painted as 'protecting'. How come these adjectives were not used. Lying, calculating etc. And this is my problem with MM critics. They simply do not apply the same rules, to top it off they do it in access when it comes to her. Very understanding of others and 'cutting them some slack' as Americans would say, yet sticklers when it comes too MM. The scales must balance.

So you are fine with her lying, but feel affronted that she was caught out lying because in your opinion FF wasn't pertenant to this case?

By that logic, a lie is fine as long as you don't get caught on it.

Pretty sure that's not what we should be teaching children/eachother. 🙄

You see, I find these labels problematic.

Just on this thread there was talk about the palace lying. This was somehow painted as 'protecting'. How come these adjectives were not used.

Meghan didn't want it to be common knowledge that she was in Toronto. If KP had told the press the truth then you'd have a problem with that too.

@BananaPB

*You see, I find these labels problematic. Just on this thread there was talk about the palace lying. This was somehow painted as 'protecting'. How come these adjectives were not used.*

Meghan didn't want it to be common knowledge that she was in Toronto. If KP had told the press the truth then you'd have a problem with that too.

Indeed there's a vast difference between smoke and mirrors to give a high profile person some much wanted privacy on a international flight to do whatever was personal to them at the time. It was clear whatever the trip to Toronto was for was deeply personal and this was respected.

Same as when you have a friend who wants to lie low for a bit and then asks "look if anyone asks where I am say you don't know" so when approached by someone who says do you know where X is? You shrug and go "no sorry".

And then there's lying to a court of law and signing statements vehemently denying something.

The difference is lying to a legal court.

Just on this thread there was talk about the palace lying. This was somehow painted as 'protecting'. How come these adjectives were not used

I know you were talking about the thread generally, rubics, but please don't ever include me in some assumed group of "palace defenders"

You'll find no bigger critic of the entire institution, which is why I often refer to the palace lying and playing dirty - and also why I feel no need to paint one "side" as blameless in order to smear the other. Exactly as with politics, I couldn't care less who's telling the lies and will call them out as just that regardless

Perhaps an NDA does not cover lying to a court. I doubt it would cover a statement in a criminal court either.

Of course not, I just found it interesting that, not having previously come forward, he chose to this time.

Of course not, I just found it interesting that, not having previously come forward, he chose to this time.

From what I’ve read, Knauf changed his mind about making a witness statement just after the Oprah interview.

Didn't Knauf decline to give evidence and then when he saw they had said things that weren't true, he decided to come forward? NDAs do not cover breaking the law. And stating incorrect facts under oath is against the law. I'm sure Knaufe will have taken advice before acting.

Indeed there's a vast difference between smoke and mirrors to give a high profile person some much wanted privacy on a international flight to do whatever was personal to them at the time. It was clear whatever the trip to Toronto was for was deeply personal and this was respected.

We have seen this pattern with the Cambridges too. We (the public) didn't know that they'd attended James Middleton's wedding in the South of France until after the event and I've not seen any details about where the family went on holiday over half term. I agree with that tbh and would imagine that when they were papped at the airport at the start of half term reporters would have tried to get that detail for their stories.

This is what the MoS lawyer said about Knauf’s decision

*It did indeed turn out that, since the summary judgment had deprived Mr Knauf of the opportunity to provide evidence at a trial, he now wished to provide a witness statement to the parties so that his evidence could be considered as part of the appeal,” he said.

He went on to explain that it had been impossible to convince Mr Knauf, through his lawyers, to provide testimony before then.

At the time, it was considered likely that Mr Knauf and his former colleagues, including other press secretaries and a private secretary who had worked for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at the relevant time, would eventually be called to give evidence at trial*

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Just on this thread there was talk about the palace lying. This was somehow painted as 'protecting'. How come these adjectives were not used

I know you were talking about the thread generally, rubics, but please don't ever include me in some assumed group of "palace defenders"

You'll find no bigger critic of the entire institution, which is why I often refer to the palace lying and playing dirty - and also why I feel no need to paint one "side" as blameless in order to smear the other. Exactly as with politics, I couldn't care less who's telling the lies and will call them out as just that regardless

Sorry @Puzzledandpissedoff, you are correct of all posters, you are one that I have seen criticising all sides. It just happened that you email was the latest one with all the aggressive words I wanted to highlight.