#sussex lawsuit

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Why do you think she picked the same day as Harry's court date for her new podcast to drop? Surely the court date was set first. Surely she wouldn't want competition for headlines because his first appearance since the Sentebale mess will definitely take precedence over her. Will he not show up at court and protect his precious wife's new venture? Or is this another example of the conscious business uncoupling and they're now in competition to see who will get the most coverage?

Honestly, I feel like it was a coincidence that the podcast is dropping the same day as the trial. If you look at her track record, she always times these kinds of projects/initiatives/PR campaigns to overlap with big BRF events so I think she was aiming for Charles and Camilla’s anniversary (it’s their 20th), which also happens to coincide with their trip.

I’d say she’s intentionally avoiding anything having to do with Kate after the intense backlash she got last year from rolling out the dog biscuits via Nacho (so intense that she actually semi-publicly apologized for it by saying she didn’t know Kate would be at Trooping, even though it had been announced earlier, and she didn’t intend to take the attention away from her) BUT her podcast episodes drop on Tuesdays and April 29th is a Tuesday this year so…

Also the other thing too about Meghan’s track record is she likes to do publicity stunts while Harry is away. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the decision to time the release with his travel is to be able to papwalk or do a similar PR stunt without having to bother with his opinion.

Yes, I’m aware how tinhatty all this is.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Ok, so it seems that they’re a government organization. In that case, then they should be publishing, or announcing, their findings in some form.

[celticcrossanon]

Celta, I sent you Neil Sean's latest video on Archie & Lilibet. I talked to a British friend of mine. The surrogate is the baby's birth parent. In order to get the child the parents have to to legally adopt the child, but the certificate is not changed. That's how many adopted children find their real parents. If Archie was born in the UK to a surrogate and the Home Office lawsuit requests Archie's original birth certificate, then we'll see if he was born to a surrogate as that can't be changed.

Hi TeaWithBooks,

That is very good information to have. Thank you for sending this ask and clarifying the situation. :)

Edit: Further to this, here is my theory on what happened:

The surrogate was booked into the hospital under the name of 'The Duchess of Sussex'. She entered the hospital and gave birth under that name. There fore, the hospital records will show 'The Duchess of Sussex' as giving birth in their facility.

A few days/weeks later, Harry and Meghan faked Meghan giving birth by sitting at home and sending out press statements.

The birth certificate had to be altered to read 'The Duchess of Sussex' as otherwise their scam would be revealed . Neither of the two are good with details so this was a change to the original certificate, which actually listed Meghan's names.

So a Duchess of Sussex gave birth and is on the birth certificate as Archie's mother. This will agree with the hospital records. Whether that Duchess of Sussex is Meghan or another person is the important question (most people will assume that it is, but it is a title and not a name, and so not a unique identifier).

Article on alteration to birth certificate (sorry for the picture of Meghan and Harry in the link for the article).

[royaltyspeaking]

Mistreatment of their staff by Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan has been mentioned by multiple news outlets. The Times, Hollywood Reporter and now Vanity Fair, these are not tabloids but credible news outlets. I don't understand how one can completely dismiss these claims. You know two things can be true at once, that the media is unfair towards Harry & Meghan and its also possible that Harry and Meghan are not good bosses.

Credible news outlets also reported that Charles sent Harry to rehab when he was caught smoking weed, and we all know that turned out to be a flat out lie, fed to the press to make Charles look good.

These news outlets are just regurgitating the same old talking points from anonymous sources with ever changing details. First, it was Meghan sent 5am emails. Then it was, okay, she sent 5am emails, but she did specify that she happened to wake up early, and she didn't need a response until later. Then it was she screamed at staff...now it's okay she didn't actually scream. In fact, she spoke in a totally normal tone. But she was direct, so it felt like being yelled at.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of current and former staff who have gone on the record stating what great bosses the Sussex's are. Until some of these sources calling them awful to work with are willing to put their names out there, I take what they say with a grain of salt. Don't forget that the royal reporters are known for using other RRs as their "sources close to the Royal Family" when reporting on some garbage they heard through the grapevine. Then, those stories are picked up by other news outlets and incessantly reported on until they are eventually accepted at the truth. It's also a known fact that tabloids have offered people thousands of dollars to make up lies about the Sussexs. So, pardon me for being hesitant to believe these stories with dodgy reporting.

One last thing, these negative stories always ramp up when Harry's lawsuits against publishers are going to court. I don't know how you can look at the timing of all this and not think that the smearing is an intimidation tactic.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

New info re: 2023 NYC paparazzi "car chase"...an email that I just received from NYPD indicates that PH felt "intentionally misled" and "suspicious of a coverup" and contacted CA Governor Gavin Newsom to get help finding the right person in the Manhattan DA's office "or higher ups." Entitled much?! by u/BuildtheHerd

New info re: 2023 NYC paparazzi "car chase"...an email that I just received from NYPD indicates that PH felt "intentionally misled" and "suspicious of a coverup" and contacted CA Governor Gavin Newsom to get help finding the right person in the Manhattan DA's office "or higher ups." Entitled much?! This email is from Sussex's security company & is addressed to Chief John Hart, the NYPD Chief of Intelligence who sent a letter dated Dec 6, 2023 to MET Police, which was included as evidence in Harry's lawsuit for tax-payer funded security. Note the mention of RASP in first bullet point (Royalty and Specialist Protection branch of the MET Police). post link: https://ift.tt/ViuOBz6 author: BuildtheHerd submitted: December 11, 2024 at 09:37PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[feministsforkatemiddleton]

Meghan's jam smearing

Two people names in Blake Lively's lawsuit are sisters Melissa and Sara Nathan.

Melissa Nathan founded The Agency Group, the PR firm hired by Justin Baldoni for "crisis PR."

Sara Nathan is the Editor at Large for the New York Post. She also wrote the Page Six item in March (leaked by the Sussexes, 99.9% likely) that Meghan would never have a photoshop fail the way Kate did.

Regardless of how much Sussex-approved PR played into the Kate saga, they had a hand, and they benefitted from it (or attempted to). Never once did they condemn the misogyny Catherine was facing. And, for Harry, he said nothing while some of the most vile lies and smears against his brother were being thrown around for fun.

Later in March, Meghan "launched" American Riveria Orchard. Never mind whether products will ever come out--Netflix greenlighted her cooking show based around. Which, again, was a harebrained attempt to gain attention and one-up her SIL who was undergoing cancer treatment.

[royal-confessions]

“On the 22nd of January 2025 HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex finally achieved his goal of proving that certain sections of the press are more than liars, they are law breakers, like he said he would in his autobiography Spare. Congratulations your royal highness. Much respect.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Prince Harry got Rupert Murdoch to admit he's a criminal who employs criminals and for this he will always be my Good King Harry.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Harry walked away from this lawsuit with a full admission of unlawful behavior by Murdoch's media empire, an apology to himself and his mother and "substantial damages": I'd expect nothing less from Rachel Zane's husband. The bonus I will add is the fact that he doesn't have to travel to Sunken Island on February to testify so it's all about Canada baby!” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Murdoch has settled thousands of cases throughout the years to avoid being found guilty and has always managed to avoid admitting any wrongdoing. Prince Harry and Lord Watson are the first to get him to admit his reporters are guilty of engaging in criminal practices. This is why this settlement is so much different from all the others (including the Prince William one which btw we only know about because of Harry revealing its existence in "Spare"), this is why it's so much more significant.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“It's so heartwarming how Prince Harry made NGN include an apology for the criminal intrusion in Princess Diana's life: he truly is her heir. God bless him.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“I got so much respect for the Sussexes because it is so much easier to do what the firm royals are doing. How easy is it to appease and buy the press and get all the fawning propaganda coverage all the time... It's much harder to say "hey I don't think that's ethical" and drag the press to court resulting in years of vendetta journalism, smear campaigns and even incitement of violence against you. It takes a strong person and marriage to take on billion dollars media empires without backing down” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Tbh it is beyond me how anyone could believe a word about Harry and Meghan coming from the media that they're currently in litigation with. There's a clear as day conflict of interest that makes those reports at best biased and at worst could be considered intimidation/vendetta journalism.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“It's so admirable how hard Prince Harry continues to fight to get justice for his mother by exposing the corrupt parts of the media that killed her. For him to get the first-ever admission of intrusion using law-breaking means into Princess Diana's life by the Murdoch media empire almost three decades after her death is so important and it vindicates his mother who was often called paranoid by the Firm + its supporters for believing that she was being tracked, listened to and spied on in general” - Submitted by Anonymous

“HRH The Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson vs NGN is the UK version of Dominion vs Fox News.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Prince Harry fought so hard for justice that he got the tabloid industry to issue a public apology to his mother Princess Diana 28 years after they caused her death. I couldn't respect this man more. Son goals.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[feminegra]

Harry Achieves Justice as NGN Admits Guilt and Apologizes for Intrusions on Princess Diana

Prince Harry has achieved a significant victory in his legal battle against News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World. The Duke of Sussex settled his lawsuit shortly before the trial began, securing a public apology and substantial damages for unlawful information-gathering. Background of the Lawsuit Prince Harry and Lord Tom Watson, former Deputy…

[sassyfrassboss]

“these two are deluding themselves that the past four years never happened.” Or maybe they just have really good weed?

I’m just surprised they admitted it took a year to build that website. It does nothing and offers nothing other than their bios. That should not have taken so long. I’d love to know what the web designer has to say about working with them.

Not gonna lie, Sussex Royal was pretty legit. I mean is was sleek and detailed.

This new website is just an addition to their Archewell site.

They ran out of money so this was the best they can produce.

Also it took them a year to roll out because the coronation hadn’t happened yet. Plus, I bet the creators refused to launch without payment.

Guess Harry’s lawsuit check cleared,

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

https://www.tumblr.com/brf-rumortrackinganon/779177323178164224/i-wonder-if-senenale-people-were-using-funds-on?source=share

Do you really think so? The People article and most of the British media are making it seem all her fault, this might be Harry's pr?

The People article reads very much like spin by Harry’s PR.

As I’ve said before, this absolutely is something to be careful about. The details being leaked out are being strategically leaked for specific reasons - aka PR. Of course the board is going to absolve themselves. Of course the chair is going to absolve herself.

I am curious about who this major donor is that she offended at the polo match. We know that she got in between Meghan and a camera, which I imagine Harry heard a great deal about…so is Harry the donor? Because I think anyone who hears “yes, I want to bring the board and the leadership closer to our work in Africa and unfortunately that means they need to be here in Botswana or Lesotho too” isn’t going to be upset, not if their hearts and heads are in the right place. That’s what I think kicked all this off — the leadership moved to Africa and certain powers that be didn’t like it.

But again, this is all still very new. We don’t know a lot so I urge everyone to be careful. Certainly consider all the facts and make your own opinions, but don’t be so quick to lay fault or blame when the investigations aren’t complete and all the facts aren’t yet known.

Because the other issue at matter here is the fact that the lawsuit includes Harry, as part of the board. Except he’s a defendant this time, not the plaintiff/complainer, which means that the discovery will be against him - ie, someone seeking information about him, rather than him seeking info about someone else. (This is an oversimplification so please don’t take this literally.)

[the-empress-7]

What will the Sussexes do then?

They'll whine to their staff.

Honestly I feel this is their last hurrah (*) - irrelevance awaits. The race card has expired, the Diana narrative is fading, the Royal sheen is off, the lawsuits are almost done... and everyone here has either more serious concerns or better escapism options.

Empress, I love this witty community, we're having a ball not-even-hate-watching - but once we're finished mocking Mrs Sussex, what then?

I low key hope Catherine brings back the culottes, just to give us a new focus 😉

(*) yeah, ok, I guess there's still the divorce, maybe

Haha remember when invoking culottes would make @anonymoushouseplantfan appear? Now those were some times.

[trexalicious]

Prince Harry's US visa drugs lawsuit is set for first court hearing since Donald Trump's inauguration - after US president said he 'wouldn't protect' duke on his return to the White House...

[saintmeghanmarkle]

And right on schedule let the blame game begin: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their Netflix polo show taken 'out of their control' by bosses insider claims - as couple face withering reviews and even pro-Sussex magazine admits the Duchess's projects 'keep flopping' - Daily Mail by u/wenfot

And right on schedule, let the blame game begin: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their Netflix polo show taken 'out of their control' by bosses, insider claims - as couple face withering reviews and even pro-Sussex magazine admits the Duchess's projects 'keep flopping' - Daily Mail Okay, we know that the Mail is trying to play both sides here to get Harry to settle his lawsuit against them, as well as get clicks. But I have no doubt who the "source" was. (We also saw the rumblings of this last week, so it's no shocker.Rotten Tomatoes: 22% (still can't post a review). IMDb: holding steady at 2.6 Archive: https://ift.tt/Rn5hYPX post link: https://ift.tt/tN3sJWx author: wenfot submitted: December 15, 2024 at 07:01PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

"It’s just weird how obsessed they are with their own victimhood" It's textbook narcissism. It's how a narcissist manipulates others into siding with them. It elevates M&H and makes the paps and the tabloids the bad guys, which supports the standard Sussex narrative and talking points. It allies them with Diana, and like Diana, they were "cast out" of the BRF -- even though H&M left on their own accord + Diana forced TQ's hand -- which makes the BRF the bad guys. Pure black + white, good + bad.

True, but still. Their documentary, which blamed the UK tabloids and paps for everything and claimed they now had a peaceful idyllic life in the pap-free US, aired less than six months ago. They still have lawsuits in the UK where they blame the specific tabloid culture there.

It's a sudden swerve (to use a driving analogy). Too sudden.

And Americans are going to lash back, as Mayor Adams and the NYPD demonstrated. It's one thing to blame foreigners. It's different when you're blaming Americans.

[royal-confessions]

“no matter which ‘side’ you’re on, you have to admit that both the Wales and sussexes have TERRIBLE PR. Like the waleses disappearing for a literal month, that carribean photo op disaster, and the over hyped awareness campaign without tangible results. And then the sussexes books and Meghan’s ‘one child is a hobby’ comment and their multiple lawsuits like WHO IS ADVISING THESE PEOPLE.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[ingek73]

‘This is about witnesses speaking their truth’: Prince Harry gets his day in court against Murdoch’s newspapers

The Duke of Sussex and the former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson are the last two claimants still suing

Vanessa Thorpe Arts and Media Correspondent

Sun 19 Jan 2025 13.00 CET

An extraordinary personal legal battle which has been years in preparation is to pit one of the most famous members of the British royal family against the world’s best-known media baron this week. On Tuesday Prince Harry’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper group, owners of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World, will officially begin at the High Court in London.

Fifth in line to the throne, King Charles’s younger son lives in self-imposed exile in California, but is due to appear in court in person once the case gets fully under way next month. The Duke of Sussex, 40, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), over claims that journalists on his popular titles worked unlawfully with private investigators, delving into his private life, between 1996 and 2011. He sees himself as the last man standing in a struggle to get the newspapers to take legal responsibility for the crimes he and others have alleged. Another surviving case brought by Lord Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, will be heard alongside the Prince’s.

About 40 other claimants, many of them celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, have already settled claims against Murdoch’s group. Most were deterred from going to trial by the huge legal bills that could be imposed on them, even after a win in court. If they had previously rejected a financial offer from NGN to pursue their grievance, they could have been found liable for millions. After accepting a settlement last year, Hugh Grant said he did so after finding out he could be liable for £10m in costs.

“They have settled because they’ve had to settle,” Prince Harry told the New York Times before Christmas. “One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I’m the last person that can actually achieve that.”

However, the civil trial, scheduled to run until mid-March, is likely to draw in other famous witnesses, including Grant, Miller, and Lily Allen, as well as testimony from eminent figures such as former prime minister Gordon Brown and the justice minister, Shabana Mahmood. It will also involve public statements from whistleblowing journalists.

Defending their reputations from allegations that they were aware of unlawful activities and even attempted to conceal them, will be many of the most powerful names in British media, including Murdoch and his son, James, Rebekah Brooks, now CEO of News UK, Victoria Newton, editor of the Sun, and the British journalist Will Lewis, who is today controversially in charge at the Washington Post, as its publisher and CEO. Lawyers for the Prince claim Lewis was implicated in a ruse to conceal evidence of hacking by removing computer files. Lewis told the the Times last summer: “Any allegations of wrongdoing are untrue.”

A spokesperson for NGN said: “Both [Watson and the Duke of Sussex] allege unlawful destruction of emails by News International between 2010-2011. This allegation is wrong, unsustainable, and is strongly denied. NGN will be calling a number of witnesses including technologists, lawyers and senior staff to defeat the claim.”

A source close to the Prince’s legal team told the Observer: “People concentrate on the allegations of phone hacking, but that is actually a small part of it. In fact, the unlawful activities we will provide evidence of were much broader, including phone tapping, blagging – or gaining information through trickery – and going through bins for paperwork.” The extent of payments to private investigators will also be considered.

The newspaper group’s bosses have previously suggested that many of their stories about the private lives of well-known or powerful people were legitimately sourced through anonymous tip-offs or by people ringing the newsroom in return for money.

The Prince launched his legal action against NGN in 2019, the same week that his wife, Meghan Markle, launched her own case against the Mail on Sunday for alleged breach of privacy and copyright infringement, over its publishing of a private letter she had sent to her father.

Harry is believed to want to hold key people accountable for the damage that he alleges was done to himself and his wider family as a result of intrusion and harassment from the press. Murdoch and his organisation have so far avoided public discussion about a document trail that the claimants argue reveals criminal activityand a concerted cover-up.

Early weeks in court will cover what are termed “generic issues”, such as examining how widespread any unlawful practices were and who knew of them. Worryingly for the defendants, broad legal proofs that unlawful information gathering was routine could be established here just by “inference”, rather than with explicit documentation. Signs of concealment, use of coded language, or that the destruction of paperwork was rife would also be damaging to the defence. This first phase will also examine allegations that NGN misled police and provided false statements to the Leveson public inquiry into media ethics between 2011 and 2012.

Those presenting the Prince’s lawsuit, it is understood, do not expect to lose any of more than 30 individual allegations of unlawful activity, but the bigger prize is the final hearing of the evidence in open court. “This will be about witnesses speaking their truth in front of the police and in public,” the source said. Most significant may be any evidence supporting the claims that newspaper staff committed perjury or perverted the course of justice.

Tom Watson’s case, which will allege the hacking of the parliamentary committee he formerly chaired while it sat to consider the hacking allegations themselves, will be heard from 10 February 10th, before the Prince’s case.

The Prince wants to attend the Invictus Games, of which he is founder and patron, and which begins on 8 February, before appearing in court. He is also thought to be planning to call on only a few witnesses, to spare others from being thrust into the spotlight. One witness may be the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack.

Harry has testified before in a hacking case brought against Mirror Group Newspapers, in the summer of 2023. The judge in the upcoming case, Timothy Fancourt, also heard that case and ruled the Prince had been a victim of “widespread and habitual hacking”. He was awarded £140,600 and then settled the rest of his privacy claims against the Mirror Group for at least £400,000.

A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011 an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World. The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with claims. In some cases, particularly those relating to The Sun, it has made commercial sense (and in accordance with common litigation practice) for the parties to come to a financial settlement without NGN accepting liability.

“NGN strongly denies that any of its titles hacked Mr Watson or acted unlawfully and will also argue his claim is brought out of time ... [The Duke of Sussex’s] allegations of mobile phone hacking have been struck out by the court so will not be part of the trial. His claim focuses now on allegations of unlawful information gathering … His claim will be fully defended, including on the grounds that it is brought out of time.”

-

Go Harry your mum would have been so proud!