Lìke her very rare post pre eclampsia.So in effect, that would be a post-nup pre-nup??? My head is starting to hurt with the various permutations of this
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Have you ever felt the Scottish miles? You might just regret moving if you haven’t!
Thanks for the new thread and title
Kinsey Schofield and Jonathan Goldberg Casey, UK Criminal Defence Lawyer, on the Sentebale Court case.
Thanks for posting, @cjguk , last thread 941.
Sentebale has filed a defamation case in the High Court. What happens next?
Goldberg: Defamation law is very complex in the UK vs. the US, where it's difficult because of the First Amendment. Therefore it's a tremendous industry in the UK unlike the US. Pleadings on both sides haven't been made public, so we don't know what the charity is claiming apart from that Harry and Dyer organised a campaign against SC and the charity.
There will be pleadings, then a hearing with the judge (no jury), and the judge has to determine on points of law if Harry's remarks etc. were defamatory and caused serious harm to SC's reputation and the charity. If these hoops are jumped the case will go to court.
Tom Bower said in Betrayal that Harry's actions negatively affected the charity's ability to raise funds.
Kinsey: What about SC being bullied so had to close her accounts and see a doctor? Does the court need analytical proof that people stopped contributing to the charity because of Harry's behaviour?
Goldberg: Yes. SC is tough and clever, media-savvy and shares similarities with Meghan. SC said on record that she felt tension between herself and Harry a year before he resigned. Both sides accuse each other of a smear campaign.
Disclosure reveals everything and nothing can be hidden, it's time-consuming and thorough. May SC be revealed to have collaborated with Tom Bower in Betrayal, where so many details about Harry are revealed? SC will be cross-examined on whether she leaked to TB, and Goldberg's advice to her would be to say Yes she did leak to the press because the Sussexes were doing the same. If SC lied and they proved it, it would be a terrible blow to her.
Kinsey and Goldberg: SC is smart, has an MBE and an impressive background, and has blown the whistle on Harry before by taking the unorthodox but clever step of reporting the charity to the Charity Commission. The CC are toothless tbh. She reported the charity for bullying, harassment, picking on her and for something Goldberg said was called misogynoir, which is not just because she's a woman but because she's black.
The CC was embarrassed and didn't know what had hit them, issuing a mealy-mouthed report in 2025 saying neither Harry nor SC were lying and that the negative publicity brought by both sides was unfortunate for the charity.
Goldberg: So here's SC now using the courts and defamation law to make the same points against Harry, Dyer and the other trustees. There will be a huge amount of dirty linen washed in public if this goes to trial, and Harry must be terrified.
He could stop it by paying a big amount into court, and if SC continues and at the end the charity is awarded lesser damages she'd have to pay the difference to the defendants. SC is acting on behalf of the charity but is the controlling figure.
Goldberg: these are vanity projects, PR on both sides though less for SC than Harry. It's gone under the radar, but SC said that the costs are not being borne by the charity. King Charles (laughs), a newspaper group with deep pockets out for revenge?
Kinsey: we've heard little about what's going on behind the scenes. Is Harry trying to settle, or is the charity seeking brand rehabilitation and Harry's text messages and emails to prove that people would no longer work with him because these helped facilitate the online campaign to shut the charity down and intimidate SC into resigning? SC says this is what Harry was trying to do, but he resigned and SC didn’t.
Goldberg: We'll see the pleadings and what the allegations on both sides are, then a court hearing. Has serious harm been proved? Was the charity raising 20m and now only 10m because of Harry? Receipts? Goldberg said if SC didn't get a settlement and insisted on running with this, she'll milk it for all it's worth, and Kinsey agreed. Harry's on the hook, the case will be huge and the publicity enormous.
Kinsey: Does SC have a chance here or is this just the process of the humiliation of discovery and finding out who Harry really is through his texts abd emails? This is why Goldberg thinks Harry will make a big offer to settle, but his hunch is that SC is backed by a news group.
Kinsey asked if in English law Harry could say that he was voicing his honest opinion? That speaking publicly about an RF-founded children's charity was in the public interest?
Goldberg: There are defences to defamation in English law.
1st. If what Harry said is true, SC was a lousy chairman, difficult to work with, a bully and staff were leaving - if this is what Harry said about SC. This is the crux, if he can prove it was true he's not libelled or defamed SC. Harry has to show that it's more likely than not that what he said about SC was true. It's the balance of probabilities.
2nd. It's in the public interest and an honest comment. The governance of this charity is in the public interest.
Goldberg mentioned Harry's calling the DM judgment a whitewash, which was totally wrong.
Kinsey: Could we see Harry on the witness stand defending emails? SC said in a public statement that Harry was behind the Sussex Squad attacks on her, but this may be hard for her to prove.
Discussion continued with speculation about settling the case. There's public opinion to consider. Goldberg said that English judges are of a very high standard. We could have a trial in 2027, and leaks before then unlikely but you never know.
Kinsey Schofield and Jonathan Goldberg Casey, UK Criminal Defence Lawyer, on the Sentebale Court case.
Thanks for posting, @cjguk , last thread 941.
Sentebale has filed a defamation case in the High Court. What happens next?
Goldberg: Defamation law is very complex in the UK vs. the US, where it's difficult because of the First Amendment. Therefore it's a tremendous industry in the UK unlike the US. Pleadings on both sides haven't been made public, so we don't know what the charity is claiming apart from that Harry and Dyer organised a campaign against SC and the charity.
There will be pleadings, then a hearing with the judge (no jury), and the judge has to determine on points of law if Harry's remarks etc. were defamatory and caused serious harm to SC's reputation and the charity. If these hoops are jumped the case will go to court.
Tom Bower said in Betrayal that Harry's actions negatively affected the charity's ability to raise funds.
Kinsey: What about SC being bullied so had to close her accounts and see a doctor? Does the court need analytical proof that people stopped contributing to the charity because of Harry's behaviour?
Goldberg: Yes. SC is tough and clever, media-savvy and shares similarities with Meghan. SC said on record that she felt tension between herself and Harry a year before he resigned. Both sides accuse each other of a smear campaign.
Disclosure reveals everything and nothing can be hidden, it's time-consuming and thorough. May SC be revealed to have collaborated with Tom Bower in Betrayal, where so many details about Harry are revealed? SC will be cross-examined on whether she leaked to TB, and Goldberg's advice to her would be to say Yes she did leak to the press because the Sussexes were doing the same. If SC lied and they proved it, it would be a terrible blow to her.
Kinsey and Goldberg: SC is smart, has an MBE and an impressive background, and has blown the whistle on Harry before by taking the unorthodox but clever step of reporting the charity to the Charity Commission. The CC are toothless tbh. She reported the charity for bullying, harassment, picking on her and for something Goldberg said was called misogynoir, which is not just because she's a woman but because she's black.
The CC was embarrassed and didn't know what had hit them, issuing a mealy-mouthed report in 2025 saying neither Harry nor SC were lying and that the negative publicity brought by both sides was unfortunate for the charity.
Goldberg: So here's SC now using the courts and defamation law to make the same points against Harry, Dyer and the other trustees. There will be a huge amount of dirty linen washed in public if this goes to trial, and Harry must be terrified.
He could stop it by paying a big amount into court, and if SC continues and at the end the charity is awarded lesser damages she'd have to pay the difference to the defendants. SC is acting on behalf of the charity but is the controlling figure.
Goldberg: these are vanity projects, PR on both sides though less for SC than Harry. It's gone under the radar, but SC said that the costs are not being borne by the charity. King Charles (laughs), a newspaper group with deep pockets out for revenge?
Kinsey: we've heard little about what's going on behind the scenes. Is Harry trying to settle, or is the charity seeking brand rehabilitation and Harry's text messages and emails to prove that people would no longer work with him because these helped facilitate the online campaign to shut the charity down and intimidate SC into resigning? SC says this is what Harry was trying to do, but he resigned and SC didn’t.
Goldberg: We'll see the pleadings and what the allegations on both sides are, then a court hearing. Has serious harm been proved? Was the charity raising 20m and now only 10m because of Harry? Receipts? Goldberg said if SC didn't get a settlement and insisted on running with this, she'll milk it for all it's worth, and Kinsey agreed. Harry's on the hook, the case will be huge and the publicity enormous.
Kinsey: Does SC have a chance here or is this just the process of the humiliation of discovery and finding out who Harry really is through his texts abd emails? This is why Goldberg thinks Harry will make a big offer to settle, but his hunch is that SC is backed by a news group.
Kinsey asked if in English law Harry could say that he was voicing his honest opinion? That speaking publicly about an RF-founded children's charity was in the public interest?
Goldberg: There are defences to defamation in English law.
1st. If what Harry said is true, SC was a lousy chairman, difficult to work with, a bully and staff were leaving - if this is what Harry said about SC. This is the crux, if he can prove it was true he's not libelled or defamed SC. Harry has to show that it's more likely than not that what he said about SC was true. It's the balance of probabilities.
2nd. It's in the public interest and an honest comment. The governance of this charity is in the public interest.
Goldberg mentioned Harry's calling the DM judgment a whitewash, which was totally wrong.
Kinsey: Could we see Harry on the witness stand defending emails? SC said in a public statement that Harry was behind the Sussex Squad attacks on her, but this may be hard for her to prove.
Discussion continued with speculation about settling the case. There's public opinion to consider. Goldberg said that English judges are of a very high standard. We could have a trial in 2027, and leaks before then unlikely but you never know.
Please Daily Mail, release the kraken on these charlatans. They must be sitting on so much info on them.
Roughly 100km....not sure of sea miles ...
PurvyPanda
VIP Member
Wednesday at 11:41 PM
........................
Purvy post 828 last thread...
Don't worry Purvy, I've sorted him out as well and that nasty man won't be bothering you any more!
VIP Member
Wednesday at 11:41 PM
Can someone also tell him to stop talking over the top of people. He’s worse than Dan ‘just click on my face’ Wootton.
........................
Purvy post 828 last thread...
Don't worry Purvy, I've sorted him out as well and that nasty man won't be bothering you any more!
Meghan Markle's Public Appearance Raises Eyebrows Over Missing Engagement Ring
The mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the Duchess of Sussex's engagement ring continues to deepen.
She took it to Cash Converters to get some cash so Harry can pay his court costs
Harry & Meghan #593
Smeg the beg with her twiglet legs!
Smeg the beg with her twiglet legs!
Exactly. His smile has NEVER looked like that.
He still looks like Sugar Bear Thompson to me.
@Rowengal
Please make this a thread title as I have laughed so much
‘No King no fee’ agreement
Please make this a thread title as I have laughed so much
‘No King no fee’ agreement
Saw this and thought they were talking about Meghan!
Hahaha 
something to brighten your day. For the Kilty lovers.
something to brighten your day. For the Kilty lovers.
Here she is!
Lauren The Insider
Thanks for posting @LadyMuck , post 826 last thread
William is being used by Harry and the Establishment, and Project Thaw is going to get worse. Rebecca English and the RR tell us what they want us to hear, and Harry and BP will often seed stories in the DM. A new one is "Will H&W call a truce for the 30th Anniversary of Diana's death?"
It's the boys' sole remaining patronage, a gala dinner but Lauren's smelt a big rat because it's not being held on the anniversary but is to coincide with the Sussex IG Birmingham event in July to suit Harry's schedule - and the Ho wants to attend the gala. Why not hold it on the actual anniversary, 31st August? W can't say no and is in a corner. Harry the bully has jumped on the Diana Awards anti-bullying, Harry the bully.
First the meeting last September, then the Stoat meeting Chuck, now the Diana Awards. DM neglect to mention that veterans are blocked on X from asking questions about IG finances. Lauren exposed the Stoat donation of £1.1m last September as a lie, the money came from a trust from Diana's funds. The BBC our national broadcaster lied and said it was Harry's personal donation, and Lauren has this in writing.
Lauren is unashamedly biased in favour of Diana, thinks she was a superstar and that the world will never see the likes of her again. Diana is priceless, the Sussex's trump card. The press demonised Diana and the Establishment went against her, she was up against the Firm and was totally alone.
Chuck has no respect for the public. Lauren is very concerned about The Diana Tapes documentary in the making, and thinks it will be twisted and already has been by the makers' saying how happy Diana was for Chuck and Cam to go off happily into the sunset. Not true.
Diana's legacy is a huge problem for the Palace, because no matter how many literary festivals they go to or mosques they visit, nobody cares. They will never come close to Diana.
Thanks for posting @LadyMuck , post 826 last thread
William is being used by Harry and the Establishment, and Project Thaw is going to get worse. Rebecca English and the RR tell us what they want us to hear, and Harry and BP will often seed stories in the DM. A new one is "Will H&W call a truce for the 30th Anniversary of Diana's death?"
It's the boys' sole remaining patronage, a gala dinner but Lauren's smelt a big rat because it's not being held on the anniversary but is to coincide with the Sussex IG Birmingham event in July to suit Harry's schedule - and the Ho wants to attend the gala. Why not hold it on the actual anniversary, 31st August? W can't say no and is in a corner. Harry the bully has jumped on the Diana Awards anti-bullying, Harry the bully.
First the meeting last September, then the Stoat meeting Chuck, now the Diana Awards. DM neglect to mention that veterans are blocked on X from asking questions about IG finances. Lauren exposed the Stoat donation of £1.1m last September as a lie, the money came from a trust from Diana's funds. The BBC our national broadcaster lied and said it was Harry's personal donation, and Lauren has this in writing.
Lauren is unashamedly biased in favour of Diana, thinks she was a superstar and that the world will never see the likes of her again. Diana is priceless, the Sussex's trump card. The press demonised Diana and the Establishment went against her, she was up against the Firm and was totally alone.
Chuck has no respect for the public. Lauren is very concerned about The Diana Tapes documentary in the making, and thinks it will be twisted and already has been by the makers' saying how happy Diana was for Chuck and Cam to go off happily into the sunset. Not true.
Diana's legacy is a huge problem for the Palace, because no matter how many literary festivals they go to or mosques they visit, nobody cares. They will never come close to Diana.
This is the Botswana photo. So pre marriage when Smeg was still trying to ensnare the Dimwit.
I think Smeg was at the she will do anything stage and that is why the idiot has the big smile.
She got the ring and that was the end of her giving out the goods for free.
Lady CC is stating that she has reliable sources telling her that Meghan’s photo dump is because she is losing Harry. Not the great love story anymore.
i would also think the photos came out because of the Wales’ photo montage that was released.
i would also think the photos came out because of the Wales’ photo montage that was released.
I'll try that!
But after they married, they moved California, which recognizes both pre- and post- agreements.They were Married in England. Pre-nuptial agreements have no Legal standing here. If she wanted one she should have married him in Scotland or something
If Meghan had the brains God gave a goat, she'd have persuaded Harry to sign a post-nup after they established residency in California. And if he did, and if they ever divorced, that could get interesting, depending on what's in the post-nup.
- Status