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?

There is a huge difference between not remembering and making something up to fit a particular narrative and stating it as fact.

Even if Harry does still have his millions from his inheritance in the bank, I would have thought he must still be aware of the fact that his income isn’t guaranteed and his outgoings are huge. Freebies in the celebrity world are never free.

I thought that was a “ curated memory “?

The problem with telling so many lies or ‘truth’ is that eventually you get tripped up.

IIRC Harry said in his book that it was his memory but it may not be correct. Or words to that effect.

I don’t have the energy to scroll through my kindle to find the actual wording.

like this?

Digging around a bit. Harry has just been on a ski holiday with Kris Jenner's boyfriend, Cory Gamble. Cory Gamble grew up with P Diddy and is the honorary uncle to PD's children. The Kardashians (whom the Sussexes appear to be getting close to) have been closely associated with PD for years.

I agree 100% with the second half of your statement, but I do think the first half is problematic because there is just so much difference between the reality and the fantasy in Spare.

Harry was on a ski holiday with Charles and William when the Queen Mother dies. It should have been memorable to him, because he'd just been busted by his school for drug taking, and the photo shoot they did for the press pack was his first public appearance after that scandal. Charles would have received the news first and presumably told the boys himself. When they received the news she had died, they flew home together - completely against protocol, because the heirs were not supposed to fly together but an exception was made in the case. As flying with their father is something that would have been extremely rare in the boys' lives, you would have thought he would have remembered it well, especially given the surrounding circumstances. There's just no comparison between the scenario Harry describes in Spare and the reality.

No one wants their name mentioned in a trafficking lawsuit , even if it’s just to draw attention to high profile celebs Sean combs knew , it must have been extremely upsetting for Harry ,

But then Harry claimed one of the reasons they left is that he was always scarified by the "firm" < hate the word> to protect other royals and that the same thing was happening to his wife so they left, they wanted to control their narrative etc etc .
its seems he really had no idea just how protected he was !
he really has no control over anything in the US now.

Interesting that Omid Scobie, who has tweeted copiously recently over what’s been going on with Kate, has said precisely nothing about this story. Despite it clearly falling squarely in his royal gossip wheelhouse. Remind me again why people think there’s no link between him and the Sussexes?

Interesting claim because this poster knows people won’t check. Scobie has made 28 headline tweets over the past 2 weeks during the height of the craziness about Kate - about 30 since the end of February. This is about one or two tweets a day which is hardly prolific for a person in media. For comparison - Richard Eden has tweeted over 70 times in the same period (I lost count after 70 and stopped in early March - by projecting Eden will have tweeted over 100 times by comparison to Scobie).Of those 30 or so tweets by Scobie

• one is about Instagram glitches
• two are about Harry’s legal cases
• one is about a Japanese game show
• one is a retweet about the Netflix movie about the Maitless interview
• one is about Penny Mordaunt
• one is about Diane Abbott
• one is about the TikTok ban in the US
• one is about Misan Harriman
• one is about Scream 7
• one is about Samantha Markle’s case being dismissed with prejudice
• one is about Stephen Spielberg
• one is about Reesa Teesa
• one is about TalkTV
• one is about the Willy Wonka experience
• one is about Harry’s high court case loss
• one is about the car chase

Of the tweets which we could count as being directly or indirectly about the POW

• one is agreeing that the POW should be afforded privacy but confused that the same papers who talk about her privacy don’t extend that to others (he was talking about himself)
• one is a retweet of a People magazine talking about the family in turmoil due to uncertainty
• one is a quote tweet about Women’s Aid disappointment in Gary Goldsmith’s inclusion in CBB
• one four days later was a cheeky tweet “How are we all doing this fine Sunday?”after everything went mad
• one was a tweet reporting the AP kill notice
• one was a retweet of Reuters’ statement of deleting the picture
• one wondering if this would be better if there was a better comms team
• one a quote tweet of the POW statement
• one an editorial tweet understanding that an occasional tweak reasonable but with a continued pattern of behaviour of similar- media and public would find it to believe a word the palace says
• a tweet of Karine Jean-Pierre saying that Biden wouldn’t digitally alter pictures
• (a tweet about Endgame - included here because he feels the coverups, lies and deceit as shown by the picture support the thesis of his book)
• one is a retweet of the Private Eye cover
• one is a retweet of a Harpers Bazaar article about the POW being seen upbeat and smiling
• one about Rebecca English’s fawning article about William
• (one deleted tweet posting a countdown to the announcement - this tweet deleted an hour before the announcement - we now know that the media received the statement one to 2 hours before the POW released it)
• Two tweets about the POW’s statement - the second quoting her personal statement of solidarity with others in similar positions
• One tweet explaining the deleted tweet

Apologies for the length but I blame hyper focus for that - many people on these threads will take some people’s claims as fact - laying things out like this is for people to make their own opinion.

This is not copious tweeting about the POW by Scobie and the most critical he is about the disarray the comms team seemed to have got themselves into - hardly controversial. There is nothing in what Scobie has tweeted over the past month which has not been said by other journalists and commentators.

I found the countdown clock to be really vicious, especially since he knew the announcement information. I didn't view it as just a countdown to her speech.

It was leaked to public about mid afternoon that there was going to be a statement at 6 that evening. You can confirm this by some unfortunate posts by some posters even here on MN feeling quite cross about it all and feeling it would be a would be nothing serious because of all the false alarms that had happened during the week. The press were told to stand by one or two hours before and given the notice in preparation for the news broadcast. Source - Emily Maitless and Lewis Goodall.

By conjecture this was when Scobie withdrew the clock. He posted midafternoon and then withdrew when he did know. You can also see it on these very threads from posters who were a bit harsh when they heard there was an announcement being a sheepish when they found out the context. Regardless- he was right to delete it.

Gee whizz that is a great deal of info there. It must have taken a while to gather that. The point remains not how much or little he has posted compared to others it is that he is peculiarly silent on Harry being mentioned in this Diddy Doc . I guess time is needed and lawyers need to be consulted as to the best way of trying to tackle this as it must be embarrassing regardless of how little or how much participation.

Yes he was right to delete it. I certainly agree with that but then he is known to be a showman so hey 🗣️

The ‘P Diggy Court Case Docs’ talked about on this thread were filed Jones vs Coombs on 26th February. So it’s been available info for a month but no one has published it until now. It seems to me that someone on SM first posted about it, now tabloids have published. They could have published a month ago, so why now?

Harry is not a defendant. You can have a look below.

Why now? A month later? Nothing else to attack Harry and Meghan with? Or something happening elsewhere that they want to distract us from? Or just their general nasty mayhem, doing the best they can to wreck the lives of Harry and his wife Meghan. Harry has sued The Mirror and won, he’s suing the Daily Mail and also Murdoch news group (and I’ll link further down what a judge has granted Harry’s lawyers in regard to Murdoch news case. Also interesting is how much Murdoch’s news group has paid out already in settlements for hacking and illegal info gathering. Even more interesting that Harry won’t settle).

Neither Harry or Meghan are perfect people and have, in my opinion, made regrettable errors. But that’s just my opinion. However, they have done nothing to deserve the malice served to them by tabloid media, or here, and elsewhere on social media. Criticism is one thing, but malice is another. I’m seeing malice now.

“Rupert Murdoch’s Dodgy Dossier: The bombshell billion pound legal document being used by Prince Harry containing allegations of systemic crime at The Sun and the News of the World” Byline Investigates 16 March 2024

By Graham Johnson | Editor, Byline Investigates

“Byline Investigates is today publishing the legal papers which threaten to bring down Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire.”

The document claims that editors and senior executives went on a 20-year crime spree in Fleet Street by hacking phones and commissioning Private Investigators on an industrial scale.

However, the most serious allegation is that the corporation’s controlling minds embarked on an epic cover-up, by concealing the wrong-doing, destroying evidence en masse to cover their tracks – and then covering-up the cover-up.

Lawyers for News Group Newspapers ‘do not admit’ most of the allegations and outright deny the rest.

The claims have never been tested at trial because Murdoch’s company has settled every case that has ever come to court.

So far, the strategy has prevented a High Court judge from making findings either way.

However, the out-of-court settlements have come at a high price. Experts estimate that the hacking litigation – at just under 20 years, one of the longest running legal disputes in history – has cost Murdoch around £1.2 billion.

Next week, on Wednesday March 20th, lawyers for victims of unlawful information gathering – including Prince Harry – will seek to add further explosive allegations into the mix.

The document is officially known by its legal title, the ‘Re-Amended Generic Particulars of Concealment and Destruction – June 2020.’
But sources have likened the allegations to a ‘crime novel in which the twists read like mafia story.’

Read the full document here:
Re-Amended-Generic-Particulars-of-Concealment-and-Destruction-June-20201Download
Read NGN’s Defence to the allegations here:
Re-Re-Re-Amended-CD-DefenceDownload

https://bylineinvestigates.com/2024/03/16/rupert-murdochs-dodgy-dossier-the-bombshell-billion-pound-legal-document-being-used-by-prince-harry-containing-allegations-of-systemic-crime-at-the-sun-and-the-news-of-the-world/

Note: I haven’t read the document or the defense to the allegations. But they’re available here. I’m just going by the summary.

There’s another article I’ll link to later that brings up Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Victoria Newton (who was I think the Sun editor when the foul Jeremy Clarkson article was published. The one about his dream of seeing the Duchess of Sussex marched naked through the streets of towns of Britain having excrement flung at her. And compared her to Rose West. Btw, when Clarkson apologized for the article he apparently apologized to Harry, not Meghan - says it all. ) I’m not 100% sure, but I think Piers Morgan also gets some attention in the article.

I’m amazed at how some people cannot see how vicious this all is.

@skullbabe . Thank you for the effort you put into collating Scobie’s tweets.

Richard Eden was very prolific 👀 with his social media posts during that same period.

Why now? A month later? Nothing else to attack Harry and Meghan with? Or something happening elsewhere that they want to distract us from?

Er, none of this.

The original civil lawsuit against Pdiddy was filed in February. There's a simultaneous federal investigation being undertaken against PD for sex trafficking and other federal crimes. PD's homes in California and Florida were raided by the FBI on Monday 25th March. The plaintiff bringing the civil lawsuit filed amended documents hours after those raids, containing new information that is now being reported upon. That's why this story is all over the news on 26 March. It's being reported globally by major news networks. It's got nothing to do with Harry's litigation against the British tabloids nor has it been pulled out off the shelf as a "distraction". It is new, current, major news.

Thank you @skullbabe
That post about Scobie's tweets was needed on this board because too often posts that are actually not true become fact very quickly

I see the counter intelligence campaign has begun in earnest. People can argue the detail all they want. The issue is that Harry is now tainted with association.

Yet another example of Sussex supporter hypocrisy. Any other Royal and they would be screaming from the rooftops for an investigation/ no smoke without fire/ spreading false rumours.

We see you. Your emperor has no clothes.

Thanks for this

@Roussette I think not.

So many anti Sussex posters getting excited at the thought of Harry being named in these lawsuits.
Very strange

I agree