Meghan Markle signs with Hollywood talent agency WME

[DottyLS]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/meghan-markle-signs-wme-1235405157/

According to Twitter this is a real step up

Travalyst describes itself as a non-profit organisation. It was set up by the Duke of Sussex with travel companies to encourage sustainable behaviour.
The Charity Commission said that promoting sustainable travel is a legitimate charitable activity, and therefore Travalyst was able to receive the funds. It added that it had provided regulatory advice to the trustees of MWX Foundation to ensure that these funds are only spent for charitable purposes.
Furthermore, the Commission said that there was no evidence that conflicts of interest between MWX Foundation and Travalyst were managed inappropriately.

In other news whilst MM is moving onwards and upwards things are looking a little bit awkward for PH.

https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-sued-prince-harry-visa-drugs-favoritism-privacy-1797722

The organization said Harry "has a severely diminished privacy interest" due to revelations, including in his book Spare.

Among examples, the filing quotes an extract relating to frostbite that Harry experienced after a 2011 trek across the North Pole: "My penis was oscillating between extremely sensitive and borderline traumatized. The last place I wanted to be was Frostnipistan."

The foundation's lawyers state: "The Duke of Sussex, however, has made the affirmative choice to put almost every aspect of his life on display—including those aspects traditionally kept private by public figures.
"In so doing, he has publicized not only his own most personal and private moments, but also those of HM the King, HRH The Prince and Princess of Wales, and the late HM the Queen.
"Moreover, these revelations have been made explicitly for massive commercial gain."
^"The foregoing history of revealing virtually every aspect of private life for
commercial gain is perhaps best expressed by South Park's biting and equal opportunity satire," the filing continued.^

Talk about open up a can of worms for yourself - what a wally.

The court filings also revealed that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] had been unable to find Harry's file: "On or about March 13, 2023, Counsel for [The Heritage Foundation] received a call from USCIS indicating that they were having difficulty locating the Duke of Sussex's A-File.

How convenient🤦‍♀️

I tried let it go because it doesn't really make a difference and it seems important to you and @skullbabe that it's a private foundation. So I really was going to let it drop. But you keep on saying it does things because it's a private foundation and it isnt. It's a public charity.

I've attached the letter that you said was a fake for reference. I don't think it is but it doesn't really matter.

I've also attached a copy of the first page of Archewells 990 form. If you look under the title of "Return of Organization exempt from Income Tax", you'll see a subheading saying, "under section 501c, 527 or 4947 (a)(1) of the IRC (except for private foundations)".
I might have misunderstood what that meant but if you go to page 14, also below, it says: reason for public charity status.
And if you go down to no 7, it says:
An organisation that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a government unit or from the general public described in section 170 (b)(1)(A)(vi).

If you refer back to the so called 'faked' letter, all these codings tie in with that letter.

I've also attached a blank 990 form for a Private Foundation and it looks quite different.

So I really do think it us a public charity.

Royal biographer Tom Bower is reported to have written in a biograhy:

"Within the biography, Mr Bower wrote: "Fearing the worst, from bitter experience, the Palace stepped in to control Meghan’s life. Aaron Korsh (TV producer) was told to submit all future Suits scripts to Nick Collins, Meghan’s agent.

"Scripts were thereafter forwarded to Kensington Palace for approval. Orders for changes of words were sent back from London to Los Angeles".
GB News 26.7.2022 Tom Bower has no love of Meghan ie 31 Oct 2022 — "It's Meghan I'm after" - GMB fans slam Royal Biographer Tom Bower in debate on royal titles. So, it seems, the palace would have placed, already had placed, limitations on scripts of Suits. I'm thinking it would follow that this would have limited the roles Meghan could play in future.Sophie Winkelman did not have the same experience.At no point did I say 'Actresses cannot have children.' But this has been turned into that.In my post I was talking about how was a long distance new marriage, and having children, supposed to work? Given that Harry was still a working Royal and the Queen and Charles seemed to want him to stay one.Meghan was established in Canada etc. Not in Britain. There would have been hurdles to her career that she was best placed to see. The Palace interferes with her scripts, plus having to re-establish her career in Britain. That's two big hurdles.To say it worked out for Sophie Winkleman, why not Meghan?' is not taking into account that Meghan was the wife of a son of the heir. Not a wife of a first cousin once removed, which is different, no matter how close the relationship between the Queen and the first cousin.Apologies: Each time I've hit preview for this post the text runs together. I've tried repeatedly to alter it. It will not do so. Perhaps when I post it will look different.

Apologies for the layout of above post: Each time I've hit preview for this post, the text runs together. I've tried repeatedly to alter it. It will not do so.

You have gone to Reddit to find these documents, so that’s the first indication you’re not genuine. It’s a revolting hateful thread you’ve found that on. The letter you’ve found is fake, it’s not even made out to the right organisation, the date is earlier than registration and it conflicts with the IRS website categorisation for the foundation. All letters from the IRS would be private. It’s FAKE. They are a not for profit, that’s the same category. It’s all on the other thread, you should keep it all there instead of dragging it into another thread.

@StormzyinaTCup that’s from the right wing anti abortionist ‘Heritage Foundation’. Nothing will come of it.

@Morestrangerthings

Absolutely.

The public have barely heard of Sophie Winkleman, she can easily fly under the radar. Not the same with Meghan. I barely knew SW was married to one of the Windsor cousins and I like to think I'm well up on who's who!

And whilst Meghan was dating Harry, the paps caused no end of problems and they were having to ringfence the acting area to keep them out. It was a completely untenable position and it would never be viable for Meghan to carry on acting at that point. Add in that the RF wanted to veto certain scripts, completely untenable.

@Whaeanui
You are being very patient, given this was all covered in great detail.

@Roussette that’s the end of my patience! The fact people rely on an obvious false document from Reddit is very frustrating!

And despite the article being dated the 2nd May, I don't think this is new. I first saw it some time ago, I believe. I think they've picked up on old news and recycled it as new.

Who is suing is not the point and I like your steadfast confidence that 'nothing will come of it' I wouldn't be so sure. It's very possible that the 'A' file will need to be 'found' and it will likely be released. If he hasn't lied about his drug taking then no problem for PH but is a potential problem for a Homeland Security, if PH has lied then that's a potential problem for him.

Watch this space.

😂 you’re really reaching! Do you miss him that much?

@Whaeanui i don't think it's worth it. For whatever reason there are a group of people who are obsessed by their hatred of this couple and want to justify their reasons.

I heard this too a while back and if I remember correctly it was the Heritage Foundation making a request under FOI for a copy of the form that PH would have filled in and they were told they couldn't release it due to confidentiality and privacy reasons. Heritage are now taking it a step further and filed court papers (on 1st May) stating they think the privacy issue for PH is weak giving the material he has put out recently. They then stated they received a call from Homeland Security this week saying the 'A' File which every single person who enters the country as a non resident would have has 'gone missing' and if true is a security problem in itself.

Oh it’s Nile Gardiner! He’s the director of the Margaret Thatcher centre for ‘freedom’ at the Heritage foundation. He was a former aide to Thatcher & a commentator for Fox News and writer for the daily telegraph 😐 you can’t submit a FOI for someone’s visa application! He’s a doofus.

I'm just stating a recent development from a legal point of view which i find interesting - what is the problem with that?

Oh do what you want, I’m allowed to laugh at it! It’s a uk journo and former Thatcher aide fuelled with vengeance trying to get Harry deported. I mean Jesus, like he’s the only person to enter America who is known to have done cocaine before 😂😂😂

Gosh @Whaeanui why so aggressive? I have made a just a posting with some factual and legal information in it and you have jumped on it like I have made a personal slight against you. Blimey.

How is that aggressive? I’m literally laughing about this! 😂 Are you always so serious this early?

Humour is objective I suppose, I'm very pleased to have bought a smile to your face so early in the day.😁

subjective

Oh mate, I wake up laughing 😆 it’s a beautiful day!

Interesting.

I had a looked at the Obama Foundation 990, the Gates Foundation 990 - and they are the same as the Archewell one - I don’t think that either gets government or directly canvasses the public. The Gates Foundation describes themselves as a tax-exempt private foundation that is structured as a charitable trust. Skimming the Archewell and Gates foundation sites - there is no “donate” button but there is on the Obama one. But you are correct - all of them are exempt under 501c and all of them also list the same in number 7. 🤷

I’ve had a look at the 990s for ACLU and American Heart Association (charities in the conventional sense) - they list their contributions as well - I again have seen no government contributions in their filings - and they also have filled the same 990 as the the three foundations above I mentioned. Interestingly - the Bush Foundation and Chan Zuckerberg foundation 990 filings are as private foundations. I wonder which charities revive government support - that seems quite out of keeping of the ethos of charitable giving in the US - that is a rabbit hole for another day I think.

I personally have no issue with any of these organisations being able to directly canvass people directly which is the key difference between charities and foundations in the United States. But I don’t think Archewell is set up that way - I could be wrong but looking at their 990 I don’t think I am.

Finally I think it odd that a letter from inside Archewell with regards to their IRS status is public - this is not released to the public domain from the IRS. It’s also strange (but please people with greater knowledge than me let me know) the letter is addressed to their president as opposed to their treasurer or executive director.

So after all that - I think that Archewell is set up as a foundation - they have had no activities to canvass the public directly and they receive no government support(though none of the entities I’ve described do) and they have funded organisations within the remit of a foundation and given grants in that aspect.

It’s also on Twitter- that’s where I found it. It’s odd that no similar letters for other foundations are publicly available.

Gosh that is a bit odd but I’m very pleased for you🤣.