Harrys name appears in P Diddy court docs? Why?

[GoldThumb]

I’m seeing this on TwitX this morning.

Prince Harry’s name appears in PDiddys court docs, in relation to his ‘sex trafficking parties’.

From how I’m reading it, it doesn’t appear to actually say Harry attended, but why would his actual name appear? He seems to be the only example mentioned by name?

I’m assuming this court doc is real, I’m very confused by this?

@Wickedlywearynamechange The emphasis in the US has been on P. Diddy, not Harry. The court behind the raid is very knowledgeable. The judges are very capable of sifting through evidence. I don't think that the case file is a Murdoch plot. To me the possibility that innocent people were possibly assaulted and trafficked is more important than a random Harry reference.

The bulk of my news has been the cargo ship that killed 6 people, took down a bridge, and will complicate our supply chain. Not Prince Harry.

To me the possibility that innocent people were possibly assaulted and trafficked is more important than a random Harry reference.

I agree.

But the topic heading is ‘Harrys name appears in P Diddy court docs? Why?’

And it led to a really interesting discussion about the media, violence against women, violence against men, etc. He was, so to speak, the starting point for philosophical debate.

And for three months, William and Catherine, who did nothing wrong, had to survive vile accusations on Mumsnet, SM, online, the news, etc. They had to worry about their kids being exposed to them. Rose Hansbury, whose only crime seems to be that she is rich and beautiful, has to lawyer up to protect her kids after her name has been smeared everywhere.

So yes, Harry, who has NOT been accused of anything either in the filing, in the news, or on Mumsnet, can survive a mention in a court filing. One of the risks of being a celebrity.

I’m sure in the US media this is a very small thing. Anything to do with H&M probably is. But they’ve been in ‘The Hill’ as you’ve linked to and someone else did also, just recently. Also, the Heritage Society is involved in a court case, wanting to access Harry’s visa info, and there is talk (gossip?) on here about Harry having to leave the US as a result.

So although there might not be much ‘interest’ there are some Americans dragging Harry into their causes.

Plus there’s, the ‘first amendment’ stuff and there’s a number of posters on here that post about Harry has been sticking his nose in and how Americans won’t appreciate it - it’s hard to know how ‘big’ that is, or not, unless you are in the US, I think. I take your word on it. Now Trump has had opinions on both Meghan and Harry. It’s small yes, but how small? I can’t judge. Especially when I see columns about Kate or Harry or Meghan or the RF in general in the NY Times and the LA Times.

At any rate, as small as it is in the US, I suspect Murdoch media may well use it as news to discredit Harry in the other two countries - in the UK and Australia. Anything is likely to be used in an effort to bring down Harry because he’s suing Murdoch’s News Group and the Daily Mail (Rothernere, I think). I started off posting to this topic wondering why they hadn’t used this court filing earlier in the British tabloids?

I should see if the NY Post or Fox News orvTMZ orb Page 6 (all Murdoch owned) have anything to say about it, but I don’t have the fortitude it would take to read that stuff.

I think we are posting at cross purposes or similar such? It really doesn’t matter at this point. I guess we’ll see if this story has traction in UK and Aus eventually.

I don’t disagree with you. I’m often quite vocal on here about the abuse perpetrated by powerful men on others, mostly women. And I agree with you about the questions Kate received here and elsewhere in the past 3 months and all the people who were Collateral damage in different ways, also. The media certainly stoked it. Re publishing those strange articles about Rose. I’d just disagree that all comments about Kate herself were abusive if that’s what you are saying. Many were, but a lot were not, also.

We can talk about both topics. And yes, Harry can survive a mention in a court document. But that’s not all he has to ‘survive’ is it? Nor is it all Meghan has had to ‘survive.’?

I’m off to bed and rest.

Maybe that's the reason though – he actually has the least connections and protections in the US compared to all the other celebs (esp Hollywood, music, TV, etc), and hence is the easiest target (but still a big name) to list. Idk just speculating.

This is a civil suit, is it not? Lil Rod Jones suing Sean Combs for $$$.

Just musing …

Where’s the advantage, the leverage, for the Jones side in mentioning Prince Harry? Who are they wanting to spook here? Do they think someone will exert pressure on Combs to settle, to kill the law suit?

Or is it just as simple as Jones saying, ‘Hey! Let’s give an impressive example of a guy I’ve heard was at a party to add some great detail to my submission’.

(It’ll be interesting to know if Jones is saying he saw Harry at a certain type of party in the 2022/23 period.)

Reading Wikipedia on Diddy (assuming it’s relatively accurate) - the section on legal issues, he settles quite a lot. That’s a long old section as well. He’s a busy man.

I saw a Fox News segment in the US where they were openly talking about this and suggesting that Prince Harry (and other big names) may have attended Diddy's 'Freak Off' parties involving drugs, sex workers and minors. And that photographic/video evidence of these parties apparently exists.

It was all 'allegedly' etc. It seems it is being picked up by US mainstream media.

I am not sure any sort of public statement will help him though - it would just create more media attention and the link between him and Diddy. I see no other celebrity of public figure has commented on it either.

Be interesting to see how this develops.

The Sussex' not commenting on Andrew when they usyally insert themselves into everything makes a lot more sense now.

I think it’s to protect bigger names who could do something terrible like order a hit on him.
Andrew will not be the biggest name on the Epstein client list but provides a convenient shield for bigger names to hide behind.

This is the issue. He has earned a reputation as a party prince and available to rent. He likes to be high profile and this is the other side of it.

I think Harry is high enough profile name to get it attention but no one is going to be scared of him. He has no power at all in the US - just name recognition. There is no blow back to naming him. Whereas you name someone more powerful in the US - it could have repercussions, you get 'black balled' and given the racketeering claims etc. it could be a threat to your life.

I think you are right there @NavigationtoEmergency

Easy to throw a name out there of someone who has no power whatsoever to take the burn.

They can be complicit in it all. They might only be ‘guilty’ of tenuous association.

But the heat is off those it should be on for sure.

Or is it?

Who knows?

Naming him is also a safe bet because it won’t automatically have people questioning what his famous and or powerful friends are like because we don’t know who he was hanging out with in 2022/3.

I am surprised we haven't seen an article in a friendly publication saying 'sources close to Prince Harry, say he is bemused by his reference in these legal proceedings. He has only ever met Sean Combs a handful of times in an official capacity when he was a working Royal. He certainly hasn't attended any private parties or engagements hosted by Mr Combs.'

Probably busy changing the labels of " PDiddy jam" on ARO

It’s probably not being reported by most foreign outlets because there’s more important angles to cover. It would be foolish to bring it to people’s attention unnecessarily - not commenting makes it look like a UK tabloid fixation.

I do think the never complain/never explain stance would work well for him at the moment.

The tabloids are probably just itching for him to protest and perhaps then take the protesteth too much argument.

I think that, if the Sun is anything to go by, there is enough to be battling with at the moment - rather than a peculiarly vague mention in someone else’s court documents.

👍

Yes it would give the tabloids an excuse to cash in with the “story” for a few more days.

I bet he's getting a bit of a telling off and quizzing at home 😂

That lovely throw (which was draped artfully over the back of a chair if I recall) might come in handy if he has to get acquainted with the sofa.