mardymare
VIP Member
İ do think that had she no longer wanted to be associated with her Dad or see him then she would not have sent the letter and started the ball rolling with the 5 friends (ex-friends) on this tit show......
Harry and Meghan #34 Maleficent Meghan and her Petulant Prince'
- Thread starter Palpatine
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harry and meghan
- Status
1
NotDumbNotBlonde
VIP Member
I had a short-lived unhealthy habit of reading Mumsnet when I was feeling particularly miserable about being single - because the variety of stories about nasty feckless or controlling "OH"s, bratty "DC"s and vile interfering "MIL"s made me feel grateful to be free.
This is a false argument by "Prof" Williams - it wasn't genuine happiness which Harry found and this is what William (and the rest of us) could clearly see. I don't think anyone would begrudge him the love of a good woman who brought out the best in him.
Last edited:
antinoos
Well-known member
Jesus Christ that Travalyst video Dickbrain has released today is embarassing. He thinks he's the bloody Queen doling out stupid words of encouragement to the awseome local leaders or what the duck.
Does anyone have a clue what this organisation does apart from enable him to pretend he has a role?
Does anyone have a clue what this organisation does apart from enable him to pretend he has a role?
Baguette
VIP Member
Big big thank you to Auny @antinoos for pearls of wisdom on Megz legal battles. Every post this morning a gem. It seems unbelievable she is still pressing on with it when the headlines get worse and worse.
Over in LA, there's a long and interesting analysis of the Drone Wars lawsuit about the John Doe pap shots of Archie (that may or may not be the ones on the cover of Bunte Magazine) from Mr Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas. He says typically they would have 60 days to serve the complaint but that might stretch to 90-180 days if the judge ishelpful 'accommodating, indulging and liberal'. He calls their complaint 'unusual'. Is that legalese for stark raving bonkers and completely hopeless?
www.foxnews.com
“We studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that, I mean the complaint doesn't name any specific defendant – either an entity or an individual,” said Lallas. “This is the first time I've ever seen this in 45 years of practicing law.”
Lallas said the privacy filing is “extraordinary” because the legal system in the U.S. is based on what is called an adversarial system – the concept being there are at least two parties, consisting of a plaintiff group and a defendant group.
Going on to say
Added the firm partner: “This is the quintessential fishing expedition because if you believe the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case, they have filed a civil action without naming a specific defendant to try to take discovery and how would they do that?”
And then the big one
Lallas said the case carries with it some irony in the sense that Harry and Markle, on behalf of their son, “want to avoid unwanted publicity" yet "on the other hand, the mechanism they have chosen is to create more publicity to try to generate a brand in the public arena that lets the tabloids in the paparazzi know they're going to enforce their legal rights wherever it may take them.”
Over in LA, there's a long and interesting analysis of the Drone Wars lawsuit about the John Doe pap shots of Archie (that may or may not be the ones on the cover of Bunte Magazine) from Mr Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas. He says typically they would have 60 days to serve the complaint but that might stretch to 90-180 days if the judge is
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle privacy lawsuit a ‘fishing expedition’ to ‘discourage’ paparazzi, tabloids: expert
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could have an intense fight on their hands, which may not work in their favor, if their recent invasion of privacy complaint against snooping paparazzi ever saw a trial.
“We studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that, I mean the complaint doesn't name any specific defendant – either an entity or an individual,” said Lallas. “This is the first time I've ever seen this in 45 years of practicing law.”
Lallas said the privacy filing is “extraordinary” because the legal system in the U.S. is based on what is called an adversarial system – the concept being there are at least two parties, consisting of a plaintiff group and a defendant group.
Going on to say
Added the firm partner: “This is the quintessential fishing expedition because if you believe the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case, they have filed a civil action without naming a specific defendant to try to take discovery and how would they do that?”
And then the big one
Lallas said the case carries with it some irony in the sense that Harry and Markle, on behalf of their son, “want to avoid unwanted publicity" yet "on the other hand, the mechanism they have chosen is to create more publicity to try to generate a brand in the public arena that lets the tabloids in the paparazzi know they're going to enforce their legal rights wherever it may take them.”
NotDumbNotBlonde
VIP Member
Really appreciating Aunty's expert input here!
What's the law's view regarding this on individual vs marital joint assets - does Harry's wealth count as theirs and therefore hers?
min
Member
I figured it's main purpose was to enable the 2 peabrains to write off all their travel expenses when flitting around on carbon-neutral (of course) private jets.
Last edited:
Baguette
VIP Member
The short answer. Booking.com seem to be underwriting most of this. They've been putting out annual surveys of sustainable travel trends for a while (like all the big travel corporates - this is nothing new).
Booking.com Reveals Where Sustainable Travel is Headed in 2018
NEW YORK, NEW YORK – April 17, 2018 – To celebrate Earth Day on April 22, Booking.com, the global leader in connecting travelers with the widest choice of incredible places to stay, has released the findings from its most recent global Sustainable Travel Report. The report indicates that the...
Booking.com were partnered with Green Key https://www.greenkey.global/
The Green Key award is the leading standard for excellence in the field of environmental responsibility and sustainable operation within the tourism industry. This prestigious eco-label represents a commitment by businesses that their premises adhere to the strict criteria set by the Foundation for Environmental Education. A Green Key stands for the promise to its guests that by opting to stay with the Green Key establishment, they are helping to make a difference on an environmental level. The high environmental standards expected of these establishments are maintained through rigorous documentation and frequent audits. Green Key is eligible for hotels, hostels, small accommodations, campsites, holiday parks, conference centres, restaurants and attractions.
My best guess is that they decided to set up their own variation on Green Key, and needed a useful idiot to front it up.
The trademark around the Travalyst logo seemed to be important when they set up this scheme so it's going to be some independent form of kitemark for green travel, with a little army of consultants who go out, preferably to the Seychelles in January, to award their Green Harry Eco Badges.
Silbee
VIP Member
Big big thank you to Auny @antinoos for pearls of wisdom on Megz legal battles. Every post this morning a gem. It seems unbelievable she is still pressing on with it when the headlines get worse and worse.
Over in LA, there's a long and interesting analysis of the Drone Wars lawsuit about the John Doe pap shots of Archie (that may or may not be the ones on the cover of Bunte Magazine) from Mr Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas. He says typically they would have 60 days to serve the complaint but that might stretch to 90-180 days if the judge ishelpful'accommodating, indulging and liberal'. He calls their complaint 'unusual'. Is that legalese for stark raving bonkers and completely hopeless?
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle privacy lawsuit a ‘fishing expedition’ to ‘discourage’ paparazzi, tabloids: expert
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could have an intense fight on their hands, which may not work in their favor, if their recent invasion of privacy complaint against snooping paparazzi ever saw a trial.
“We studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that, I mean the complaint doesn't name any specific defendant – either an entity or an individual,” said Lallas. “This is the first time I've ever seen this in 45 years of practicing law.”
Lallas said the privacy filing is “extraordinary” because the legal system in the U.S. is based on what is called an adversarial system – the concept being there are at least two parties, consisting of a plaintiff group and a defendant group.
Going on to say
Added the firm partner: “This is the quintessential fishing expedition because if you believe the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case, they have filed a civil action without naming a specific defendant to try to take discovery and how would they do that?”
And then the big one
Lallas said the case carries with it some irony in the sense that Harry and Markle, on behalf of their son, “want to avoid unwanted publicity" yet "on the other hand, the mechanism they have chosen is to create more publicity to try to generate a brand in the public arena that lets the tabloids in the paparazzi know they're going to enforce their legal rights wherever it may take them.”
Meagain, wants privacy the same way other people want herpes.
If I've ever come across a more self obsessed, self aggrandising, attention seeking, money mad megalomaniac I've forgotten who they are.
Last edited:
Lollydyerx
Well-known member
mardymare
VIP Member
Whether this stupid case goes to trial or not it will result in huge costs for Meghan (see Aunty's breakdown) which she probably thinks will just get paid by Charles. İ sincerely hope that by the time it comes to settle up that all funding is cut off. Roll on a US investigation into her tax affairs and dodgy dealing(Delaware/Merching off the RF)/laundering (Doria's 9).....hoping that she gets her comeuppance at some stage, sooner than later. Just Harry's hopeless infatuation is the obstacle and she's lovebombing and keeping him sweet/treating him mean if you know what İ mean....
Yorkiejules
Chatty Member
That must have been some NDA that she signed before the shotgun wedding or maybe the trees still standing and h is banging his head against it...Really appreciating Aunty's expert input here!
What's the law's view regarding this on individual vs marital joint assets - does Harry's wealth count as theirs and therefore hers?
As for travalyst...I mean,whos bright idea was a travel firm opened in the middle of a supposed plandemic where most of the planes are parked up and ppl are being made redundant in the same industry..
You can't write this script....
My money's on money laundering or they are using it as a go fund my legal costs page by any other name...
The name of the new enterprise MWX reminds me of a bike firm back in the day..
BMX...maybe they should buy a couple and ride off into the sunset....
antinoos
Well-known member
No hes not a party to the proceedings.Really appreciating Aunty's expert input here!
What's the law's view regarding this on individual vs marital joint assets - does Harry's wealth count as theirs and therefore hers?
She doesnt actually seem to own anything does she? Which is classic.
Isnt all the USA stuff in Doria's name? The only joint UK asset is whatever leasehold interest they might have in the no doubt hideous shagpad they had done up at our expense. So one half of that could be attacked (not the Freehold but they must have some kind of real personal interest or why else make the insultingly small repayments?) forcing someone else to pay out of embarassment if it all goes tits and she storms off with the baby/hostage claiming shes been the victim of domestic abuse and refusing to meet her legal obligations - which is the ultimate (probably very unlikely) risk for the stupid deluded twit.
That zoom broadcast by Harry today made me seethe. He really is just carrying on likes he's George VIth leading his brave "people" in a global struggle rather than a pathetic unemployed barely literate grubby ex-royal shacked up with a psychopath in a borrowed villa.
Thanks for all your kind words I'm off out now.
Eye bleach urrrrgghh
PennyCrayon
VIP Member
While I’m pleased the costs will be huge I’m also hoping for a statement from her saying she was wrong and she took it too far. I want to see her eat humble pie and for once have to admit she’s wrong.
min
Member
He's 'building it back better'At least H has been allowed in to another room this timebefore he is locked back in the basement
Facehugger
VIP Member
I am hoping that she will be forced to do that too Penny, I can't wait
I don't think she'll do it by choice, she's one of these that will never admit they're wrong, have blinkers on where their own behaviour is concerned, never apologise for anything or own any of their mistakes and everything that happens is always somebody else's fault.
Melodybear
Well-known member
They should have kept away from the press then (if they did go to them in the first place) You sometimes reap what you sow. Maybe PC is paying for everyones legal representation
Popcornstein
Well-known member
Sorry if anyone has already posted, too many pages to catch up!
But this MWX thing - how accurate is that report? Why is she clinging onto use of the name Markle? How do wage a public war with your father and disassociate yourself from the whole family but still use the family name?
And Harry's never used the name Windsor, he's always been Wales?
But this MWX thing - how accurate is that report? Why is she clinging onto use of the name Markle? How do wage a public war with your father and disassociate yourself from the whole family but still use the family name?
And Harry's never used the name Windsor, he's always been Wales?
Last edited:
Melodybear
Well-known member
Smeg isn’t friends with little people with nothing to offer her.
PennyCrayon
VIP Member
I am hoping that she will be forced to do that too Penny, I can't wait
Nope they never apologise. What’s more they’ve never thanked the uk public for the support they received while they were here. She’s never explained why she felt the need to flee, to justify her vile ‘racist’ claims. They were deviously secretive when it came to Archie, excluding the public from any part of his life. They’ve never said why I should fly economy (if at all) while they take private jets or why I should feel the need to look at my unconscious bias, I could go on and on because I have lots of things I want explanations for from these two hypocrites but I’m never going to get one. So, if it’s extracted from her by force I don’t care, I just want to see her squirm.
- Status