antinoos
Well-known member
Hello girls. Didya miss me? Some free advice Dont Get It. Auntie has been proper poorly. Not the full Boris but fuck me I need my own bespoke charity to cope with the trauma of the fucking coughing which has finally abated and I'm back on the Gin. Actually I hate Gin unless its in a dry martini and its too early for anything but a bloody mary, but I digress. I dont ever want to talk about it again fucking RNA no breeding and no manners.
Now where was I...The Amended Reply (to the Defence).
The way it works is the Claimant sets out their case identifying the facts and matters they rely on (without complete detail) in seeking an order from the Court, which is what a "Case" actually is - in this case Damages initially for Breach of Privacy and all sorts of alleged racist wrongdoing that the court struck out because it was bollocks. Now just Breach of Privacy.
The Defendants then say how they will dispute the facts and matters and why the legal basis of the Claim is wrong. Then there is the Claimants Reply. Often a Counterclaim is introduced at this point to up the Ante for the Claimant (not only are you going to lose your claim but Im suing you for damages as well). This is where Aunties favourite poppet Colleen has come unstuck (well one of them) but thats another story.
The Claim looks a little challenged after the Defencw so the Claimant often files a Reply usually denying matters raised for the first time in the Defence so the legal and factual matters that will be argued in Court at Trial have boundaries and the real issues can be litigated sensibly amidst all the noise.
God I'm boring myself but I know you clever bitches like to be well informed, In the good old days when the only women you saw in court were weeping picturesquely in the witness box there were further pleadings: rebuttals, rejoinders and sur-rejoinders but they alas went out with the ducking stool.
The legal filing that the Peoples Pustules desperate lawyers have finally made is an Amended Reply. Exactly 2 months after Warby took them to the woodshed, which itself suggests they were dragging their feet and did so at the last minute up against a deadline ultimatum based on the date of the Order. A month would be more usual.
Unfortunately there is no copy available online and I am reliant on the most detailed description of it which appears in the evil Daily Mail which is of course one of the parties and may not be whole picture. Meghans case is now that the publication of the letter was a breach of her privacy rights. The Mails defence is that she had already waived the rights when her "then-friends" leaked either the letter or its existence or some of its contents to something called People Magazine.
Imagine the scene at Schillings, Meghans rather "legacy" legal budgies. They may well, you may think, hate her. You cannot have that much of a reputation for being an impossible demanding bitch with a trail of corpses without being....They took on the case in a welter of £25k interim biils paid by return as the champions of the wronged bi-racial peoples princess. They have slowly discovered that perhaps all was not as they were initially led to believe and been publically humiliated. Their client blames them. She does not respond to communications except at unreasonable times and she is always hurt, disappointed critical and onto the slightest error. They hoped she might sack them but she hasnt and they have made some sort of promise that they can still make it all work just to make life bearable but in their deep dark legal hearts they know its a very dead dog and its going to end quite horribly, even if by some miracle she wins.
The Reply has to pull off the remarkable feat of arguing with a straight face that Meghan was completely unaware that no fewer than 5 of her "then-friends" spontaneously went to People and incidentally mentioned the letter without her knowledge. The explanation they have persuaded her to sign off on is that they were so concerned about the frail mental health of this hard boiled twice married Z list actress and succesful businesswoman because the evil old Nazis in the Palace Press Office didnt stop the racist British Press publishing true stories about her appalling behaviour, that the felt compelled out of the kind of blind loyalty saints inspire to talk without her knowledge to the press. Thus she didnt know and thus she had an expectation of Privacy in the letter.
Will anyone believe this? As a lawyer you often just let lying clients walk across no mans land into the machine gun fire....not that I'm saying this is happening. Oh no. Perish the thought.
Finally, you drop a dead cat on the table. In this case the hilarious assertion that she raised £1billion for the Exchequer. Thats a fuck of a lot of Yacht Trips.
Now where was I...The Amended Reply (to the Defence).
The way it works is the Claimant sets out their case identifying the facts and matters they rely on (without complete detail) in seeking an order from the Court, which is what a "Case" actually is - in this case Damages initially for Breach of Privacy and all sorts of alleged racist wrongdoing that the court struck out because it was bollocks. Now just Breach of Privacy.
The Defendants then say how they will dispute the facts and matters and why the legal basis of the Claim is wrong. Then there is the Claimants Reply. Often a Counterclaim is introduced at this point to up the Ante for the Claimant (not only are you going to lose your claim but Im suing you for damages as well). This is where Aunties favourite poppet Colleen has come unstuck (well one of them) but thats another story.
The Claim looks a little challenged after the Defencw so the Claimant often files a Reply usually denying matters raised for the first time in the Defence so the legal and factual matters that will be argued in Court at Trial have boundaries and the real issues can be litigated sensibly amidst all the noise.
God I'm boring myself but I know you clever bitches like to be well informed, In the good old days when the only women you saw in court were weeping picturesquely in the witness box there were further pleadings: rebuttals, rejoinders and sur-rejoinders but they alas went out with the ducking stool.
The legal filing that the Peoples Pustules desperate lawyers have finally made is an Amended Reply. Exactly 2 months after Warby took them to the woodshed, which itself suggests they were dragging their feet and did so at the last minute up against a deadline ultimatum based on the date of the Order. A month would be more usual.
Unfortunately there is no copy available online and I am reliant on the most detailed description of it which appears in the evil Daily Mail which is of course one of the parties and may not be whole picture. Meghans case is now that the publication of the letter was a breach of her privacy rights. The Mails defence is that she had already waived the rights when her "then-friends" leaked either the letter or its existence or some of its contents to something called People Magazine.
Imagine the scene at Schillings, Meghans rather "legacy" legal budgies. They may well, you may think, hate her. You cannot have that much of a reputation for being an impossible demanding bitch with a trail of corpses without being....They took on the case in a welter of £25k interim biils paid by return as the champions of the wronged bi-racial peoples princess. They have slowly discovered that perhaps all was not as they were initially led to believe and been publically humiliated. Their client blames them. She does not respond to communications except at unreasonable times and she is always hurt, disappointed critical and onto the slightest error. They hoped she might sack them but she hasnt and they have made some sort of promise that they can still make it all work just to make life bearable but in their deep dark legal hearts they know its a very dead dog and its going to end quite horribly, even if by some miracle she wins.
The Reply has to pull off the remarkable feat of arguing with a straight face that Meghan was completely unaware that no fewer than 5 of her "then-friends" spontaneously went to People and incidentally mentioned the letter without her knowledge. The explanation they have persuaded her to sign off on is that they were so concerned about the frail mental health of this hard boiled twice married Z list actress and succesful businesswoman because the evil old Nazis in the Palace Press Office didnt stop the racist British Press publishing true stories about her appalling behaviour, that the felt compelled out of the kind of blind loyalty saints inspire to talk without her knowledge to the press. Thus she didnt know and thus she had an expectation of Privacy in the letter.
Will anyone believe this? As a lawyer you often just let lying clients walk across no mans land into the machine gun fire....not that I'm saying this is happening. Oh no. Perish the thought.
Finally, you drop a dead cat on the table. In this case the hilarious assertion that she raised £1billion for the Exchequer. Thats a fuck of a lot of Yacht Trips.
Last edited:
I really appreciate all the likes and other emojis given to me to show how much my posts are enjoyed 
Thank you 
anyway I love it on here, I won't give it up 
