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.

@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.

KP should have given their usual answer or no comment, instead of creating a brew of deceit.

@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.

I'm not convinced the palace was lying. If Meghan's own senior staff (Knauf) didn't know about the trip to Toronto, I think it's at least possible that whatever other palace sources talked to that reporter didn't, either. If they did lie about her whereabouts, I don't think they should have. But the reason it's being discussed in terms of "protecting" is that Meghan has repeatedly claimed that they never protected her. Here, they appear to have lied to the media to conceal a personal trip she wanted kept quiet for personal reasons.

@BananaPB

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.

You are proving my point though. You are both twisting yourselves into pretzels to justify this lie. With MM, you seem cut and dry, calling it a lie.

MM did not have a one on one meeting with Omid or authorise him to speak to her friends. She also claims she could not remember those messages regarding Omid specifically, because she has a lot of correspondence and her messages get deleted.

The judges will decide if this is perjury, the last did not, I highly doubt these ones will do either.

You are now calling her a liar.

The palace outright lied about her whereabouts, you are calling it protection.

I would be staggered if the terms of Jason’s NDA, as drafted when he joined the Palace, did not prevent him from giving evidence to the court otherwise than under a court order. And there has been no court order here, so in theory he is likely to have breached it.

However in the last couple of years there has been considerable judicial scrutiny, and disapproval of, the tendency of people to use NDAs to effectively gag people from speaking out about wrongdoing. A few have been set aside - particularly because they purported to prevent the signatory from taking the appropriate steps in relation to misconduct (like reporting it to a regulatory authority).

So it may well be that Jason’s new lawyers felt that there a very low risk that the NDA would be enforced against him in a court when he had breached it to endure the court was not being misled.

And one further point - the issue of whether Finding Freedom is relevant to these proceedings has already been litigated. ANL had to get the court’s permission to amend their defence to include it. Meghan’s lawyers opposed it, but the judge determined ANL could include it. So yes, it is relevant.

I'm not convinced the palace was lying. If Meghan's own senior staff (Knauf) didn't know about the trip to Toronto, I think it's at least possible that whatever other palace sources talked to that reporter didn't, either. If they did lie about her whereabouts, I don't think they should have. But the reason it's being discussed in terms of "protecting" is that Meghan has repeatedly claimed that they never protected her. Here, they appear to have lied to the media to conceal a personal trip she wanted kept quiet for personal reasons.

As I said a number of time :no comment, will do as they always say. Its not like someone just saw her at the office 20 minutes ago. If reports are that she was spotted on a flight, you check, and you ask, but she was spotted on a flight. This is not protecting, they know very well the story will come out that "Meghan lied" as it always does.

KP should have given their usual answer or no comment, instead of creating a brew of deceit.

A brew of deceit? So throwing the papers off the scent of where Meghan was going on a private trip was a brew of deceit? She was spotted boarding a plane, so “no comment” would probably not have put the journalists off trying to pursue her. Haven’t people complained, including Meghan herself, that the palace did nothing to defend her from the attentions of the press?And when they do, it’s a brew of deceit. As pp have said,‘it’s a “lie” of the sort that you might tell to cover for someone you know if they are in an awkward situation . Not really comparable with lying about a bunch of emails to a court of law.

@Roussette

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

That's because she invites it more and so people are going to comment and form an opinion of her more. She voices her opinions, does public interviews which are controversial and seems to make a statement of any number of things she's interested in. She's a much more controversial figure in the way she approaches being in the public eye so of course people comment on her more.

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

@Puzzledandpissedoff do you really think it's likely Meghan chose the word 'reminder' in a private email to a member of staff in order to obscure the truth if it became public? That's what you seem to be implying here .

The palace outright lied about her whereabouts, you are calling it protection

This is starting to remind me of the “Queen’s two birthdays” debacle 🙄🤣

Thanks @Serenster. That's what I was wondering. It seems unlikely to me he would go against an NDA without this being approved by the palace (or, as you say, court ordered). However much disapproval there might be about the misuse of NDAs - which I agree is wrong - Knauf must be pretty confident of his position within the establishment to make the decision to do this.

There's no twisting needed.

She lied in a signed statement to a court of law. There is no twisting needed. No mental gymnastics. She explicitly said "I did not collaborate with FF" she swore to court this was the truth. It appears now this is not the truth and "sorry I forgot" doesn't cut the mustard. It was a chain of e-mails and texts and clearly they wanted to be able to stick to "we didn't collaborate" but JK was insistent once they opened Pandora's box there was no going back, and rather than let H really put his foot in it, took it upon himself to mitigate the mess.

She lied to a court of law and signed her name on the dotted line.

Palace using smoke and mirrors and half truths to protect someone's privacy upon their request, is a completely different kettle of fish to a court of law.

There's no legal ramifications to saying "I don't know where X is" or "I can't tell you where X is" no court of law is involved in this cover up of whereabouts. It's not like they were giving her a alibi for a crime was it. M wanted the trip to be kept on the QT so it was. Should they have ignored her request for it to be kept quiet and tweeted Meghan's on a plane to Canada, hope that helps, pap her if you can? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Obviously not.

This is starting to remind me of the “Queen’s two birthdays” debacle

I kind of agree but I do see rubicscubicle's point that it's the vocabulary used, and the omissions, which often make me feel people aren't being fair.

@rubicscubicle

I'm not convinced the palace was lying. If Meghan's own senior staff (Knauf) didn't know about the trip to Toronto, I think it's at least possible that whatever other palace sources talked to that reporter didn't, either. If they did lie about her whereabouts, I don't think they should have. But the reason it's being discussed in terms of "protecting" is that Meghan has repeatedly claimed that they never protected her. Here, they appear to have lied to the media to conceal a personal trip she wanted kept quiet for personal reasons.

As I said a number of time :no comment, will do as they always say. Its not like someone just saw her at the office 20 minutes ago. If reports are that she was spotted on a flight, you check, and you ask, but she was spotted on a flight. This is not protecting, they know very well the story will come out that "Meghan lied" as it always does.

"No comment" would have worked fine, but telling someone something you believe to be true isn't "lying" just because you ended up being wrong. And likely as not, the reason they believed Meghan not to be in Toronto was because Meghan lied to them about planning to go there in the first place. So what's your basis for believing that 1) anyone at the palace knowingly lied about Meghan's whereabouts, and 2) Meghan did not lie to anyone at the palace about her whereabouts?

Common sense I would imagine @PurpleOkapi. They couldn't not know where a senior royal is to the extent of that individual being in a different continent.

You are proving my point though. You are both twisting yourselves into pretzels to justify this lie. With MM, you seem cut and dry, calling it a lie.

I have no problem saying KP lied about Meghan's whereabouts on her behalf. Meghan didn't want her location to be known as she was on a private trip (perfectly reasonable) If the spokesperson who dealt with this enquiry at the time was asked her location while on the stand, they would probably reply Toronto.

At the time did KP deny that she was in Canada or did they give an incorrect location ?

From a security stand point it makes sense to keep non official personal travel as private/secret as humanly possible for such high profile people.

M would have travelled with significantly less security as it was deemed to be a "off the radar trip" less chance of people seeing her, knowing her whereabouts and planning something. Same reason the Cambridge family have many personal travel plans kept under the radar. For their safety.

That's because she invites it more and so people are going to comment and form an opinion of her more. She voices her opinions, does public interviews which are controversial and seems to make a statement of any number of things she's interested in. She's a much more controversial figure in the way she approaches being in the public eye so of course people comment on her more

Personally I have far more to say about the RF who we pay for, than someone who we don't fund and who lives in the US. But there you go...
yes she's controversial. And you say she invites it more. When she doesn't say a word and is quiet and getting on with her life, the threads don't stop. It tends to be regurgitating old stuff or DM nonsense.

If only PA 'invited it more'.... ??

but telling someone something you believe to be true isn't "lying" just because you ended up being wrong

You are perfectly fine with this statement, only if it applies to the palace.

But no way, if it's Meghan.

Under oath or not, she believed she was telling the truth about not co-operating as she did not have any sit down, so could not recall any. She also had no proof of emails as they were deleted on her side, so could not check .

If you are fine with calling out everyone else as a 'liar' without going to all these to defend them, I am perfectly fine to also cut and dry call MM a liar. But don't come to me with excuses about other royals and palace lying and excusing them, when you do not for MM.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Common sense I would imagine *@PurpleOkapi*. They couldn't not know where a senior royal is to the extent of that individual being in a different continent.

Why couldn't they, if that senior royal didn't tell them she was going anywhere, and then denied being on a different continent while she was on that different continent? Whatever checking they might have done in response to reports of Meghan being seen on a plane, I doubt it included a complete search of the grounds to physically verify whether she was or wasn't there.

I think that’s a bit unfair Aspiring. I can understand being upset with the vocabulary, but I don’t think this is a good example of a lie told by the palace versus one told by Meghan. Especially as they may have told this particular fib to keep the paps away from her. Rubicscubicle is trying to put the two fibs on the same level and it doesn’t really work. No one tells the entire truth the whole time, but sometimes the motivation and the results are important. “Meghan’s not in Toronto” = paps go away. “I didn’t have any contact with Scobie. Oops yes I did” = misleading court of law.

Palace lie all day long about stuff. They are experts in "spin"

For various reasons. Security and Safety (I'll let this go, the white lie has a greater benefit, such as denying someone's whereabouts for their privacy/safety) Harry serving in Afghanistan, Meghan's trip to Toronto, Cambridge family holidays.

Mitigate family drama (contentious, where's the line?) Harry in Vegas Charles affair, Williams alleged affair, Sarah Ferguson multiple drama to name but a few.

Lying to a court of law....suppose we will have to wait to see what old Andrew has to say in the coming months....pizza express indeed Meghan and her forgetful press briefings. Those are lies of which there are no excuses for. You can't lie to court.

Palace lie all day long about stuff. They are experts in "spin"

Yes, yes yes to this. We are spoonfed a diet of exactly what they want us to know. We have no choice in the matter.

@rubicscubicle

but telling someone something you believe to be true isn't "lying" just because you ended up being wrong

You are perfectly fine with this statement, only if it applies to the palace.

But no way, if it's Meghan.

Under oath or not, she believed she was telling the truth about not co-operating as she did not have any sit down, so could not recall any. She also had no proof of emails as they were deleted on her side, so could not check .

If you are fine with calling out everyone else as a 'liar' without going to all these to defend them, I am perfectly fine to also cut and dry call MM a liar. But don't come to me with excuses about other royals and palace lying and excusing them, when you do not for MM.

Meghan intentionally lied about her own actions. She didn't "forget" that she wrote several pages of personal information about herself and her family that she ordered Knauf to pass on to Scobie. It's simply not possible to forget something like that. She's spent the past several years talking endlessly about her obsession with "setting the record straight" and "getting the truth out there," and we're supposed to believe that she completely forget about her biggest and most initially successful attempt to get her version of events reported on?

We know Meghan didn't tell Knauf about the Toronto trip in advance. We have no reason to believe she told anyone else about that trip in advance, either. If Meghan flies off to another continent without telling her own staff, then is recognized on the plane and the staff have to field questions about it without having any idea what's going on, then it's ultimately on Meghan when inaccurate information ends up in the media. And if they did know where she was and lied about it, then they were just following her instructions when they did so, so it's still on her.