Honour for Jason Knauf

[BethJ62]

Interesting that Jason Knauf has been honoured in the NY Honours List ( RVO).

Do lawyers not simply say what their client tells them to say ?
My ex h’s lawyer made a lot of completely untrue allegations about me simply on the word of his client.

I think it is the palace's way of quiet communicating to the public that he deserves it upon the basis of the evidence from both sides of the story which they cannot share with us directly. They have all the facts, the public do not (and the stans certainly do not). He stood up for THE truth and he stood up against the bullying of other employees. He never seemed to take sides himself in favour of one faction or the other.

In the Netflix documentary, Meghan’s lawyer, Jenny Afia, goes so far as to suggest William would have given his authority for Mr Knauf to come forward in the case, saying: ‘A senior member of the Duke of Cambridge’s team came forward to give this witness statement which wasn’t required. And sadly there is just no way he could have done that without the authority of his bosses.’

So my take on this statement by Jenny Afia is akin to , we thought Jason's NDA would be watertight so we were safe in telling a 'porkie' in court and no-one would be any the wiser, damn that Jason Knauf! we are going to have to come clean now.

If you know someone is lying in HM court and you are the Prince of Wales do you really think it's a good move to turn a blind eye to something you know is a lie? It would comeback and bite him for sure.

Love it. Actions speak louder than words.

Of course as has been said other ex staff member have received awards but we know the Sussexes and their deranged squad (not on here I mean the extremists on Twitter) will take this as a personal attack. I'd imagine it will feature heavily in Reality Show Vol 3. Or, in one of their 'Poor Us' upcoming chat show appearances.

I find it really telling how much Jason Knauf is hated by Meghan and Harry’s fans - because he did not want to see the court misled by the Duchess and told the truth

Isn't it just?
FWIW I can totally buy that the RF intended this as a subtle slapdown to H&M, but it doesn't change the fact that Knauf rightly revealed a blatant lie. It's no surprise that the fans will resent him for that, but the answer there isn't to attack the discloser - it's not to lie in the first place

And as I've said before, having claimed that they never asked him to provide evidence, H&M had better hope he doesn't possess yet more emails proving the exact opposite

My hunch is that now Charles is King, the gloves are coming off properly and there will be uglier drama ahead which will outdo everything we have seen so far.

@bakalava i tend to agree . I think they will be waiting to see what Harry says in his book before saying/ doing anything .

Exactly- he thinks he was summoned by Meghans lawyers. Meghans lawyers statement reveals they didn’t summon him.

Meghan’s lawyer’s statement does not however state that he wasn’t approached personally by Meghan or Harry to see if he would be willing to give evidence for them. Which would be the more normal course of action if you are dealing with someone that you know personally.

Also, there is a difference between asking a witness to provide a witness statement on your behalf, and summoning them. A witness summons is a formal application you make to the court if you believe that there is someone who has evidence that the court needs to hear, and they won’t agree voluntarily to be a witness. The court is the one that issues the summons. No-one was summoned to give evidence in this case, not by Schillings or ANL.

Is Jenny’s real complaint that JK stepped in with supplementary evidence that exposed her client’s declaration to be disingenuous and deceptive?

Did the court decide his evidence was fake or malicious?

Does any employer have any hold over another individual choosing to get involved in the court system or not? I can see if PM said “No” it would be potentially withholding evidence and therefore troublesome.

If in the end the court had the opportunity to review and dismiss his witness statement as make their own determination that it was either irrelevant, neutral, non malicious or significant then what’s the issue - surely it’s the courts call?

The wording in the response by Meghan's lawyers is very careful here.

The statement by JK's lawyers says he was asked to "provide evidence" by both sides.

Meghan's lawyers say he was "not asked to provide a witness statement." It's worded to sound like they're refuting his statement, that they're calling him a liar effectively - but he doesn't say at any point that he was asked to provide a witness statement by Meghan.

That means he probably was asked to provide evidence by Meghan's lawyers (in fact I'm sure this would be documented in the court files which is why they presumably can't deny it) so they're manipulating words in their response to make it seem like an absolute denial. Quite devious really.

A lawyer who is mindful of their ethical duties will not normally sign a witness statement putting forward facts unless they personally know them to be true. Unfortunately not all lawyers are terribly ethical!

(Another reason I am side-eyeing Schilling statement - they say they don’t believe Jason Knauf is “neutral” because his evidence was used by ANL. They will know very well that legally there is no property in a witness of fact. They give evidence for the benefit of the court, and aren’t “owned” by either side. But most people won’t know that, and the Sussexes want to paint Jason Knauf as being against them as its suits their narrative).

But Rose Hanbury's husband the Lord Chamberlain got short shrift when the Queen died if we are Kremlin watching the RF for the bantz. The BBC feed went silent when they took their seats in the Abbey as well.

"(Another reason I am side-eyeing Schilling statement - they say they don’t believe Jason Knauf is “neutral” because his evidence was used by ANL. They will know very well that legally there is no property in a witness of fact. They give evidence for the benefit of the court, and aren’t “owned” by either side. But most people won’t know that, and the Sussexes want to paint Jason Knauf as being against them as its suits their narrative)."

@Serenster absolutely agree. It's very misleading and deliberately so - and those who are supporters of M&H take it at face value and believe that JK is lying and has an agenda which is what they want you to think.

The reality is that JK provided irrefutable evidence that proved that Meghan was lying in the court case. But that's inconvenient to their narrative.

Recollections may vary ....

I disagree - the NF series was IMHO a damp squib with zero evidence presented of malicious intent by the RF.

I think it has backfired on M&H showing them to be hypocritical, self serving and disingenuous and their ratings will likely fall - and there are certainly edits where NF have made it a “mockumentary”.

I think the RF just need to keep silent and dignified and let H&M continue to humiliate themselves - most people know what they are looking at.

I think the book won’t be that revealing - maybe only to throw up more inconsistencies and even if it is not sure that PH is seen by many as having much credibility and integrity now so most will take his words with a yawn and a pinch of salt.

6hrs on NF was where their opportunity for max impact lay - the music, the visuals, the reach etc. I wonder if they feel it achieved their objectives? It certainly got viewers but did it garner support for them?

I hope though that people could see again the shocking and relentless racist and misogynistic attacks by of some the media and social media to POC and especially WOC and how this was amplified on MM.

That’s how I read it too.

Cant believe people think it was wrong of him to provide evidence to a court of law.

What should he have done, withheld evidence?

@Glindara Well, I hope it turns out as you describe. After all, there is a new story being developed surrounding the titles for the children. The press make it sound as if Charles is withholding these to discipline H&M and indirectly coercing a couple of toddlers, his own grandchildren. Regardless of whether or not it is true, the children will be inclined to believe it one day and the impact could be hugely damaging.

If only they were given an exclusive season of Jeremy Kyle as a family to deal with it all in one go with lie detector tests, psychologists, the whole shebang.

Haha, now that I’d watch 😂

Or that his employer PW should influence this decision one way or another.

But Rose Hanbury's husband the Lord Chamberlain got short shrift when the Queen died if we are Kremlin watching the RF for the bantz.

The Lord Great Chamberlain I think you mean there, Vera99 - that’s a different office. And if by given short shrift you mean his role ended as soon as the late Queen died, that is correct. The office has passed passed to Baron Carrington for the duration of King Charles’ reign.

This is because of an agreement reached in 1912 between which of three houses of the nobility would hold the office. The Earl of Ancaster, the Marquess of Cholmondeley and the Marquess of Lincolnshire agreed they would rotate the office between them and their heirs after them, changing at the start of each successive reign. Cholmondeley and his heirs would serve in every other reign; Ancaster and Carrington would each serve once in four reigns.

It’s currently the turn of the Marquess of Lincolnshire. As this title has now died out, choosing who will be their representative is determined by various members of the Carrington family. The Carrington family members selected Baron Carrington to take on the role.

(You will doubtless be delighted to know that this means that the Marquess of Cholmondeley and his wife will be back in the role again for the start of William’s reign. Won’t you have fun then! 🙄).

(You will doubtless be delighted to know that this means that the Marquess of Cholmondeley and his wife will be back in the role again for the start of William’s reign. Won’t you have fun then! 🙄).

😁

Thanks KP you obviously know your Royal Worcesters from humble fries stretching a potato analogy to beyond breaking point.

Me too 😁!

Yes I would. Evidence to me there's an active rift from the William camp. Not just a Harry/ Meghan grievance this.