Page 33 | Meghan Markle Archetype podcasts & interviews

susan12345678 · 2022-08-30T06:17:52+00:00

As the last thread filled up & there's plenty of discussion of Meghan's interview in The Cut, seems worthwhile starting a new thread! A read yesterday that a series of media interviews are planned to promote the podcasts. Should be very interesting if The Cut interview is anything to go by!

derxa · 31/08/2022 14:54

Sorry the fire happened at your home @derxa , but am I correct in concluding that you had time to process it all and went to work the next day - not just get changed and go there and then. Once more, sorry about what happened, it must have been terrifying.
Process it? My son was seconds from being seriously injured.

Novella4 · 31/08/2022 14:56

@Serenster I know you repeatedly state that you aren't defending Andrew and you may even believe it- but you are .

Can you explain why Andrew hasn't helped the FBI with their enquires after his public pledge to do so ?

Gilmorehill · 31/08/2022 14:59

Yes I was also surprised by how quiet and shy she was at the interview. I just assumed someone who went to public school and mixed in those circles would be a bit ‘up themselves’! I remember she looked very tense before her first public speaking role and feeling a bit sorry for her.

Serenster · 31/08/2022 15:00

Asked and answered already in this thread, Novella4.

Andrew’s London lawyers say they have offered assistance, the FBI say they haven’t. We have no way of knowing which one is telling the truth.

The FBI could easily compel Andrew to attend an interview whether in London or New York. They have not done so. (They haven’t compelled any of the Epstein associates to be interviewed, as it happens. Interesting, that….).

(You know what I believe now, do you? What a crock!)

amyneedssleep · 31/08/2022 15:01

Serenster · 31/08/2022 14:47

The fact of the matter is that if Virgina had no basis for her case, it would not have made it to trial.

No, because Virginia sued in New York which has completely different rules on costs and where people often bring speculative claims on the basis that:

they don’t face the financial risk of a costs award against them,
they get the benefit of witness depositions to flush out the other side’s evidence at an early stage;
It’s far easier to get funding for your lawyer so you don’t have to pay their bills out of your own pocket
they can get a jury trial, which is many cases are a real benefit to the claimant
they actually market themselves as “plaintiff friendly” jurisdictions in order to get people to choose their courts as the forum for the dispute.

Luckily for Virginia, New York State has what is called a “long arm jurisdiction” that meant she was able to sue Andrew there for events which happened in London and the Caribbean and had only the most tenuous connection to New York. She also sued on the very last day she was able to in order to avoid her case being out of time to litigate. She forum shopped, in other words, to find the jurisdiction where she had the best chance of securing a large settlement at thr smallest personal risk to herself. And it turned out very well for her! If she’d sued in London, who knows what would have happened.

I completely understand that people want to believe that settling out of court is a “silent admission”. In reality, it’s absolutely not.

Fair enough, you clearly know your stuff! Seem as though Virgina has provided a text book example of how to extort money legally. Such a shame that someone Andrew has allegedly never met was able to gain so much money from the crown's reserves. The rest of the royals better hope that no more of Epstein's victims come forward with their own unfounded allegations, as they now know exactly what to do in order to milk the system.

Novella4 · 31/08/2022 15:03

The FBI had filed on other royals - didn't mean they could act on it , did it ?

notanotheroneagain · 31/08/2022 15:14

Don't know that much about Andrew, but wasn't there a story about how the US had to serve him papers in person, but he hid behind mummy skirt, so it's not like anyone could just serve him.
Not sure how it works with FBI enquiries.
I do know, they were so frustrated in not being able to reach him, they sent a bus to go around BP etc. saying, the FBI wants to talk to you.

Anyway, mummy made sure he does not get to court for questioning.
That is protection.

Capri3 · 31/08/2022 15:15

Serenster · 31/08/2022 14:47

The fact of the matter is that if Virgina had no basis for her case, it would not have made it to trial.

No, because Virginia sued in New York which has completely different rules on costs and where people often bring speculative claims on the basis that:

they don’t face the financial risk of a costs award against them,
they get the benefit of witness depositions to flush out the other side’s evidence at an early stage;
It’s far easier to get funding for your lawyer so you don’t have to pay their bills out of your own pocket
they can get a jury trial, which is many cases are a real benefit to the claimant
they actually market themselves as “plaintiff friendly” jurisdictions in order to get people to choose their courts as the forum for the dispute.

Luckily for Virginia, New York State has what is called a “long arm jurisdiction” that meant she was able to sue Andrew there for events which happened in London and the Caribbean and had only the most tenuous connection to New York. She also sued on the very last day she was able to in order to avoid her case being out of time to litigate. She forum shopped, in other words, to find the jurisdiction where she had the best chance of securing a large settlement at thr smallest personal risk to herself. And it turned out very well for her! If she’d sued in London, who knows what would have happened.

I completely understand that people want to believe that settling out of court is a “silent admission”. In reality, it’s absolutely not.

This.

Over 95% of civil cases in the US are settled out of court. Jury trials there aren’t recommended due to jurors having a “no smoke without fire” attitude (even if dna evidence shows otherwise) and also letting likeability influence their decisions. Jurors are also able to set the amount of damages awarded, which in some cases have been hundreds of millions of dollars.

Legrandsophie · 31/08/2022 15:21

Serenster · 31/08/2022 14:02

Also worse noting that there’s a team of 20 or so people credited on the podcasts Meghan has released to date. It’s not like shes been beavering away creating them on her own.

This is a great point.

It is not exactly like she’s been slogging away at home on her own recording bits on an old laptop and editing them together.

And the answer to the straw man question ‘what does Kate do?’ is that she does exactly the same as Diana did- charity work, fund raising, state functions and engagements and patronages.

The difference is that she does it without the constant ‘me, me, look at me’ of MM.

FrippEnos · 31/08/2022 15:22

notanotheroneagain · 31/08/2022 15:14

Don't know that much about Andrew, but wasn't there a story about how the US had to serve him papers in person, but he hid behind mummy skirt, so it's not like anyone could just serve him.
Not sure how it works with FBI enquiries.
I do know, they were so frustrated in not being able to reach him, they sent a bus to go around BP etc. saying, the FBI wants to talk to you.

Anyway, mummy made sure he does not get to court for questioning.
That is protection.

From the little I know about the system in the USA the papers have to be served in person, this isn't something special reserved for members of the RF.
An example would be Olivia Wilde that had papers served to her whilst on stage.

AchatAVendre · 31/08/2022 15:25

Capri3 · 31/08/2022 15:15

This.

Over 95% of civil cases in the US are settled out of court. Jury trials there aren’t recommended due to jurors having a “no smoke without fire” attitude (even if dna evidence shows otherwise) and also letting likeability influence their decisions. Jurors are also able to set the amount of damages awarded, which in some cases have been hundreds of millions of dollars.

Show quote history

Interesting though that Andrew, with all of his legal representation on tap, found himself unable to put in place an interdict against Virginia Guiffre or similar accusers in all the years that these allegations have been made in public and repeated in print.

Because normally that would be the usual pattern to stop this sort of thing spiralling to this extent. A nice little formally worded somewhat scary warning letter of dire happenings, costs and legal actions should the "unfounded allegations" continue to be repeated either libellously or slanderously.

I love the way that some posters on here are so up their own paralegal backsides that they genuinely believe that they are bestowing some great wisdom in pointing out that most cases are settled out of court.

FrippEnos · 31/08/2022 15:30

AchatAVendre · 31/08/2022 15:25

Interesting though that Andrew, with all of his legal representation on tap, found himself unable to put in place an interdict against Virginia Guiffre or similar accusers in all the years that these allegations have been made in public and repeated in print.

Because normally that would be the usual pattern to stop this sort of thing spiralling to this extent. A nice little formally worded somewhat scary warning letter of dire happenings, costs and legal actions should the "unfounded allegations" continue to be repeated either libellously or slanderously.

I love the way that some posters on here are so up their own paralegal backsides that they genuinely believe that they are bestowing some great wisdom in pointing out that most cases are settled out of court.

Show quote history

Rich people used to be able to get 'super injunctions' as termed in the press. These were stopped as they were deemed 'not in the public interests'.

They were also leaked to the press on a regular basis. One by an MP who couldn't be prosecuted for it.

Besides any strongly worded letter could be sold/leaked to the press.

LadyEloise1 · 31/08/2022 15:42

Why haven't those other very well known names ( better known than PA ) linked to Epstein been investigated ?

Serenster · 31/08/2022 15:42

Interesting though that Andrew, with all of his legal representation on tap, found himself unable to put in place an interdict against Virginia Guiffre or similar accusers in all the years that these allegations have been made in public and repeated in print.

Firstly, it’s impossible to get an interdict (you must be Scottish! The rest of the world doesn’t call them that) or indeed, an injunction on a worldwide basis. You would have to go to each and every country where her allegations have been published in online papers and news sites to shut them down, which is clearly impossible. No-one has ever tried.

The Virgina Giuffre - Alan Dershowitz debacle is also a good example of why that kind of strategy just causes havoc. Giuffre has alleged that she was instructed by Epstein to have sex with Dershowitz. She sued him for defamation in 2019, after he responded to those allegations by calling her a “certified, complete, total liar.” Dershowitz filed a countersuit against her later that year. He is claiming physical, emotional, and mental damages against her. She is claiming the same against him. It should be heard sometime next year.

(Also, what kind of a snob are you, thinking calling someone a paralegal is an insult…)

Serenster · 31/08/2022 15:43

Anyway, enough from me on this subject. It’s derailing, even if it is something I find professionally interesting 😀

notanotheroneagain · 31/08/2022 15:46

FrippEnos · 31/08/2022 15:22

From the little I know about the system in the USA the papers have to be served in person, this isn't something special reserved for members of the RF.
An example would be Olivia Wilde that had papers served to her whilst on stage.

Show quote history

well yes.

The article's point is that while you and I can answer the door or be found walking down the high street, Andrew was squirrelled away at one of mummy palaces - where you could not serve the papers directly to him.

You cannot serve HMQ herself of course, not sure how she can covers others in proximity - the unanswered question was wether, you can even do that for those in her vicinity.

AchatAVendre · 31/08/2022 15:54

Serenster · 31/08/2022 15:42

Interesting though that Andrew, with all of his legal representation on tap, found himself unable to put in place an interdict against Virginia Guiffre or similar accusers in all the years that these allegations have been made in public and repeated in print.

Firstly, it’s impossible to get an interdict (you must be Scottish! The rest of the world doesn’t call them that) or indeed, an injunction on a worldwide basis. You would have to go to each and every country where her allegations have been published in online papers and news sites to shut them down, which is clearly impossible. No-one has ever tried.

The Virgina Giuffre - Alan Dershowitz debacle is also a good example of why that kind of strategy just causes havoc. Giuffre has alleged that she was instructed by Epstein to have sex with Dershowitz. She sued him for defamation in 2019, after he responded to those allegations by calling her a “certified, complete, total liar.” Dershowitz filed a countersuit against her later that year. He is claiming physical, emotional, and mental damages against her. She is claiming the same against him. It should be heard sometime next year.

(Also, what kind of a snob are you, thinking calling someone a paralegal is an insult…)

Oh for goodness sake, spare me the lecture. Its not "impossible" to get an interdict. Its simply a civilian law term (i.e. in use in most EU legal systems and indeed Louisiana) as opposed to an Anglo-American one and uses the Roman law term without the Anglo-Norman Law French spin. One of the earliest recorded interdicts in post-Roman times was the Interdict of Dordrecht in 1355. I know how injunctions work. Thank you so much for explaining. You have spectacularly missed the point and gone off at a tangent. Are you American? Because you seem to think that the only legal systems are common law systems.

The point being that Andrew York would have threatened to take out injunctive or interdictory measures in multiple jurisdictions (and may well have done so) and for some reason this usual action either wasn't resorted to or wasn't effective. The clear implication from all of that is that there was more than a grain of truth in the allegations.

My paralegal is very useful, thank you.

BadgerB · 31/08/2022 15:59

So, yeah, she expected to be given some space to breath after this. It's shocking.

When Meghan claimed that she didn't want to leave Archie after the heater incident, Serena said, "why didn't you take him with you?" (she was going to a mother-&-baby group). Meghan carried on talking without answering

Lineala · 31/08/2022 16:02

Novella4 · 31/08/2022 14:56

@Serenster I know you repeatedly state that you aren't defending Andrew and you may even believe it- but you are .

Can you explain why Andrew hasn't helped the FBI with their enquires after his public pledge to do so ?

Because no formal request to do so was ever made.

Serenster · 31/08/2022 16:03

The point being that Andrew York would have threatened to take out injunctive or interdictory measures in multiple jurisdictions (and may well have done so) and for some reason this usual action either wasn't resorted to or wasn't effective.

(a) it would cost millions.
(b) the allegations were already out there - they had started in the News of the World in 2010 and continued to gather pace worldwide since then. So that horse had already bolted.
(c) Prince Andrew is a newsworthy figure worldwide. Unless he co-ordinated all his court cases precisely (impossible) then papers all over the world would have reported on this tactic as soon as he started, thus kicking off the Streisand effect and drawing even more attention to the allegations against him.
(D) for the reasons given above, it would have achieved precisely nothing, given the allegations were already out there, and been a colossal waste of money.

So it would have been an utterly stupid strategy to adopt. This is not “usual action”. There is not a single example I am aware of of an individual seeking multiple injunctions around the world to stop a story. (The British government spectacularly failed in the Spycatcher cases in the 1980s)

The clear implication from all of that is that there was more than a grain of truth in the allegations.

Well, given there was a photo of Prince Andrew and 17 year old Virginia Giuffre together, that hurdle was crossed long again. What is doesn’t mean is that he had sex with her.

Serenster · 31/08/2022 16:04

(And that really is my last word!)

ancientgran · 31/08/2022 16:07

Serenster · 31/08/2022 14:47

The fact of the matter is that if Virgina had no basis for her case, it would not have made it to trial.

No, because Virginia sued in New York which has completely different rules on costs and where people often bring speculative claims on the basis that:

they don’t face the financial risk of a costs award against them,
they get the benefit of witness depositions to flush out the other side’s evidence at an early stage;
It’s far easier to get funding for your lawyer so you don’t have to pay their bills out of your own pocket
they can get a jury trial, which is many cases are a real benefit to the claimant
they actually market themselves as “plaintiff friendly” jurisdictions in order to get people to choose their courts as the forum for the dispute.

Luckily for Virginia, New York State has what is called a “long arm jurisdiction” that meant she was able to sue Andrew there for events which happened in London and the Caribbean and had only the most tenuous connection to New York. She also sued on the very last day she was able to in order to avoid her case being out of time to litigate. She forum shopped, in other words, to find the jurisdiction where she had the best chance of securing a large settlement at thr smallest personal risk to herself. And it turned out very well for her! If she’d sued in London, who knows what would have happened.

I completely understand that people want to believe that settling out of court is a “silent admission”. In reality, it’s absolutely not.

I read she is being sued now, do you know if that is in New York. I can't remember who is suing her, another woman who was involved I think. I can't remember if she is suing Alan Dershowitz or if he's suing her or maybe they are suing each other.

American lawyers must be kept very busy.

Roussette · 31/08/2022 16:07

If (and it's a big IF) PA had indeed never met VG, he would not have paid out the £9M or £12M or whatever it was. That is just impossible.

And I remember at the time, he had the very best legal teams that money could buy, both over here and in NY (the bill was mounting up to an eye watering amount) so he could've fought the case IF he had never even met her.

I think the Maitlis interview told us all we need to know. I have never called him a nonce or a paedophile (I don't think he is either) but I do think he slept with trafficked girls not much older than his daughters. I have no sympathy with him whatsoever, he was besties with a sex trafficker and a woman who procured young girls.. as Colin Powell said... (and he was wise)

A mirror reflects a man's face but what he is really like is shown by the kind of friends he chooses

SpinCityBlues · 31/08/2022 16:08

Thing is, the royal family has got lots of millions. Lots and lots and lots.

Somebody advsing The Firm did the risk assessment, and I'd love to have seen it.

meercat23 · 31/08/2022 16:13

A mirror reflects a man's face but what he is really like is shown by the kind of friends he chooses

That is it is a nutshell. I have no idea what the truth is about who he did or didn't meet or who he did or didn't sleep with but the fact that he chose to travel to spend time with Epstein once it was clear what Epstein had been up to, he put himself in the situation that has caused him so much trouble. For whatever reason he felt that he couldn't or shouldn't cut his ties with Epstein and I think that raises huge questions about his judgement and standards. The rest follows from this.