Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Duchess of Success succeeds in getting the ridiculous lawsuit by Samantha Markle dismissed

251 replies

MrsMaxDeWinter · 31/03/2023 20:23

Common sense decision this.

I hope that the tabloids who were (most probably) sponsoring this non-case of Samantha Markle's will pay the Duchess of Sussex her legal fees.

The judge correctly found that how Meghan felt about her upbringing was a subjective opinion about her childhood and her relationship with her half-sister. The court found that Meghan's statement about "feeling like an only child" is not objectively verifiable or subject to empirical proof, and, as a statement of pure opinion was “not capable of being proved false”.
The court also said the plaintiff Samantha "cannot plausibly disprove" Meghan's "opinion of her own childhood."

On the claims based on Finding Freedom, the court said the Duchess could not be held accountable for a book that she did not write or publish.

Go Meghan. I'm sure Samantha will file something else again soon ... and that she will lose again.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 13:43

Not unexpected that news organisations offer this kind of crap.

Nevertheless my default is to believe nothing anyone says on the internet without evidence.

That Co star of Meghan markles didn't name the newspaper? Why not? It could have been an international newspaper but why not name it?

This makes me suspicious as the H&M narrative is they are hounded by the press who write lies about them. Therefore this man could have been paid by the couples PR team to say this because it then supports the narrative.

After all if he had chosen to lie in a news report, the newspaper and he himself would have been open to lawsuits. A big risk. However if he is ambiguous and makes this statement, there can be no come back.

Win win for M&H. Just saying

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 13:43

That was @notanotheroneagain

notanotheroneagain · 02/04/2023 14:09

So let me get this straight.
The DM and S*n were at the front and centre of this lie story. They would have had proof that they spoke to this guy and they would never let the opportunity to expose MM as having a PR that in turn lied while vindicating themselves as having told the truth about Rex and MM affair. But they somehow let the story go? I don't think so.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 15:48

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 13:43

Not unexpected that news organisations offer this kind of crap.

Nevertheless my default is to believe nothing anyone says on the internet without evidence.

That Co star of Meghan markles didn't name the newspaper? Why not? It could have been an international newspaper but why not name it?

This makes me suspicious as the H&M narrative is they are hounded by the press who write lies about them. Therefore this man could have been paid by the couples PR team to say this because it then supports the narrative.

After all if he had chosen to lie in a news report, the newspaper and he himself would have been open to lawsuits. A big risk. However if he is ambiguous and makes this statement, there can be no come back.

Win win for M&H. Just saying

👏👏 @purpledalmation

My default is to question everything.

Is it a case of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' and everyone's a winner? (which is probably standard practice when you are trying to make it in Hollywood). Also just saying.

Original poster
MrsMaxDeWinter · 02/04/2023 19:25

Of course Samantha should just be quiet, but equally Meghan should say nothing about her sister if she can't be at least kind.

Meghan has been incredibly restrained in my view. Samantha had multiple accounts spreading stories about Archie being a "fake" child, and that Meghan was never pregnant. This is all on record.

I don't care what kind of abusive childhood you think she had @purpledalmation Nothing excuses the things she said about Meghan's children.

It's telling, I think, that even now, Samantha is estranged from all three of her children who are now all adults.

Samantha and Thomas Jnr are estranged from their mother, Roslyn.

Thomas Jar is estranged fro his former wife and his two children with her.

Similarly, Thomas Sir is not in contact with any of his other
grandchildren, the three kids of Samanths's and the two kids of Thomas Jr.

But I guess this is all somehow Meghan's fault too??

OP posts:
purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 19:53

But I guess this is all somehow Meghan's fault too??

I never said anything of the sort. Stop gaslighting

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 19:57

@StormzyinaTCup I think this ambiguous lying is an internet/instagram/hollywood thing because (unless you are famous) no one questions it and takes it at face value. And MM clearly did an awful lot of this on her way around the media world. Of course no one checked it, she was basically one of thousands doing the same. Unfortuately for her she continued this when she did become famous, and omg is she being slaughtered for it. She doesn't do google (?) so clearly doesn't understand fact checking LOL

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 20:18

Hmmm.

Duchess of Success succeeds in getting the ridiculous lawsuit by Samantha Markle dismissed
purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 20:36

@Whaeanui Boiled down to its basics, gaslighting is attempting to convince another person they are doing or saying something they are not. @MrsMaxDeWinter Is trying to convince me what I am saying about samantha's dysfunctional upbringing is meghans fault. I never said anything of the sort. Its a tried and tested trick on MN and I will call it out.

milveycrohn · 02/04/2023 21:02

I have not read the entire thread, so this may have been mentioned elsewhere, but as far as I am aware, only part of the case has been dismissed. ie, Some of Samantha's case was dependent upon what was written in Finding Freedom, which was written by someone else. (Yes, apparantly MM helped the authors, but that is not the point). So the part of the case that depended on the book has been thrown out, and Samantha was given time to amend her deposition(?)

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 21:10

milveycrohn · 02/04/2023 21:02

I have not read the entire thread, so this may have been mentioned elsewhere, but as far as I am aware, only part of the case has been dismissed. ie, Some of Samantha's case was dependent upon what was written in Finding Freedom, which was written by someone else. (Yes, apparantly MM helped the authors, but that is not the point). So the part of the case that depended on the book has been thrown out, and Samantha was given time to amend her deposition(?)

Thats correct She has 14 days to amend her evidence, but she is relying on what was said on Oprah. As far as I'm aware saying you grew up as an only child really isn't defamitory. I think she will have time to reword the statement that samantha changed her surname back to markle following the engagement. Its a clear implication that SM only did it to chase fame on the back of her half sister. It was a clear and proveable lie, and the judge will have to decide if it is sufficiently defamatory to allow the suit to continue. I don't know if the netflix series forms part of the evidence, but she would have to do the same for that. Not sure if she can add it.

The book stuff, despite having MM admit to providing the content, can't be used as it's not directly from her. I think omid scobie would have to be sued as the author?

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 21:19

The book stuff, despite having MM admit to providing the content, can't be used as it's not directly from her. I think omid scobie would have to be sued as the author?

This is the problem in trying to pin anything down in the legal sense. MM is not silly and chooses, for the most part, to use other people as her mouthpiece (usually Omid but there are others) it does the job of getting out what she wants to say/convey but also keeps what's said from being directly associated to her. It gives her a convenient 'get out'

PreparationPreparationPrep · 02/04/2023 21:28

Some people just love filling the gaps with their own assumptions.

So why didn't Samantha just sue Omid? Couldn't the lawyer have given her this advice in the beginning? He after all made money from the book.
Or she just wanted to try her chances against Meghan.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 21:47

PreparationPreparationPrep · 02/04/2023 21:28

Some people just love filling the gaps with their own assumptions.

So why didn't Samantha just sue Omid? Couldn't the lawyer have given her this advice in the beginning? He after all made money from the book.
Or she just wanted to try her chances against Meghan.

She still might if it's got legs.

On a side note, let's not forget Scobie has a new book coming out in August called 'Endgame'

On September 8, 2022, the world stood still as news broke of Queen Elizabeth II’s passing. Her death dismantled the protective shield around the world’s most famous family and saw a long-simmering crisis of confidence in the British monarchy begin to resurface. Now, with unique insight, deep access and exclusive revelations, journalist Omid Scobie pulls back the curtain on an institution in turmoil—exposing the chaos, family dysfunction, distrust and draconian practices threatening its very future. This is the monarchy’s endgame. Do they have what it takes to save it?

I particular liked this bit:
Now, with unique insight, deep access and exclusive revelationsGrin

Cokefans · 02/04/2023 21:51

Only two people would talk to Scobie - and we know who they are

purpledalmation · 02/04/2023 21:58

Now, with unique insight, deep access and exclusive revelations
*
*
That's hilarious. The guys a joke

Whaeanui · 02/04/2023 22:06

@PreparationPreparationPrep it’s hard to sue for libel or defamation, the book is opinion. If she wants to try again it would have to be against the authors of the book as the judge said Meghan can’t be held responsible for it and the other claim re Oprah was dismissed. Wining against an author about a book based on opinions, and known to be, would be hard. You have to prove what was printed was wrong and that they either knew it or didn’t do any checks- was negligent.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/04/2023 22:13

@purpledalmation - I know😂
I have no idea where on earth this 'deep access' and 'exclusive revelations' would have come from? Has a member of staff broken an NDA? Has Princess Anne done the dirty? Has a corgi yapped! 😁😁

queentim · 02/04/2023 23:21

MrsMaxDeWinter · 02/04/2023 02:43

Have you actually read the judgement?

The Finding Freedom claims were dismissed because SM made the fatal mistake of suing over what was in a book not actually published by the person she is suing. Publication to a third party is an essential element in a defamation claim. These claims were dismissed with prejudice and can't be resubmitted.

She had three other claims based on the CBS interview. All claims were dismissed. One was dismissed because it was subjective opinion that could not be unproven-- MM saying she felt like an only child growing up

The other two were dismissed because SM deliberately twisted and embellished what was said. One claim, that MM said she had met SM a "handful of times" was dismissed because, as the court said. “This statement is nowhere to be found in the interview transcript.”. Another, that SM changed her name after MM and Harry were engaged so that she could "cash in" was dismissed because those words about cashing in were not said either.

Th judge allowed her to refile, but made it clear that she was on a road to nowhere.

As for the Netflix series, MM said very little about SM that was not subjective opinion, eg that they did not fall out because they were never close enough to fall out. Bouzy then said she had multiple Twitter accounts spreading disinformation. On that claim, she was given the right to reply, and used it. Her response was shown in the documentary And the most cutting comments came from her own daughter. She would have to bring a separate legal action if she wants to sue her daughter.

So she can refile, but the result will be the same. There is nothing that Meghan has said that is defamatory of Samantha. If anything, Samantha has destroyed her own reputation.

Show quote history

This. **

custardbear · 03/04/2023 08:12

@x2boys - am I not allowed an opinion unless it's positive!

x2boys · 03/04/2023 08:19

custardbear · 03/04/2023 08:12

@x2boys - am I not allowed an opinion unless it's positive!

Your opinions are always filled with hate about a women you have never met why is that🤔

custardbear · 03/04/2023 10:52

@x2boys - certainly MM because she's toxic, had a huge hand in trying to ruin family relations in her own as well as Harry's family. She lies and is narcissistic, everything she says is self promotion behind lies and statements with limited truth that is twisted. I cannot see why anyone would have any trust and admiration for her unless they're, frankly, stupid

x2boys · 03/04/2023 11:12

custardbear · 03/04/2023 10:52

@x2boys - certainly MM because she's toxic, had a huge hand in trying to ruin family relations in her own as well as Harry's family. She lies and is narcissistic, everything she says is self promotion behind lies and statements with limited truth that is twisted. I cannot see why anyone would have any trust and admiration for her unless they're, frankly, stupid

You don't know the women ,I find it very strange,that people get so worked up.about the perceived behaviour of strangers 🤷

custardbear · 03/04/2023 11:14

It's not perceived though is it ... 🙄

x2boys · 03/04/2023 11:30

custardbear · 03/04/2023 11:14

It's not perceived though is it ... 🙄

A lot of it is yes .