Last year, Meghan Markle hit one of her arch-rivals, Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Mail On Sunday and The Daily Mail, with a lawsuit for publishing parts of a private letter she sent to her loyal (to his checking account) and devoted (to again, his checking account) father Thomas Markle a few months after she married Prince Hot Ginge. Even though many of us are on lockdown and turning our kitchens into fucking San Francisco by churning out sourdough bread on the hour, a preliminary hearing in Meghan’s case was held virtually last week. I really need to see the clips of the barristers arguing on Zoom while working those Dangerous Liaisons wigs as they make sourdough at the same time. The judge in the case has made some decisions and the decisions were against Meghan’s case. Okay, but again, I need to know if the judge used a piece of sourdough as a gavel while making those rulings.
People said that in a written judgment that was released today, the judge in the case, Justice Warby, struck out parts of Meghan’s claims, like accusing the Mail On Sunday of purposefully trying to put another crack in the already pile of turd rubble that is her relationship with her father. When this case goes to trial (either later this year or early next), that shit can’t be a part of her case. Basically, Justice Warby streamlined her case.
This means that when the case goes to trial, the court will not be asked to rule on whether the Mail on Sunday acted dishonestly, pursued a negative agenda against Meghan or deliberately stirred up trouble between the Duchess of Sussex and her father, Thomas Markle, 75. During the pre-trial hearing, the newspaper said that Meghan’s team didn’t have enough proof of dishonesty – mainly because it’s a state of mind.
Instead, the legal case will now focus purely on whether the Mail on Sundayinfringed Meghan’s privacy and U.K. laws surrounding copyright and data protection by printing excerpts of a handwritten letter she sent to her dad in August 2018.
“I do not consider the allegations in question go to the ‘heart’ of the case, which at its core concerns the publication of five articles disclosing the words of, and information drawn from, the letter written by the claimant to her father in August in 2018,” Justice Warby wrote in the summary of his findings.
But NBC News added that Justice Warby did say that the parts he struck out of Meghan’s case can be revived “if they are put on a proper legal basis.”
A rep for Schillings, the law firm representing Meghan, said in a statement that they’re surprised by Justice Warby’s decision, but they will keep on, keep on, and believe that they will be victorious!
“Today’s ruling makes very clear that the core elements of this case do not change and will continue to move forward. The Duchess’ rights were violated; the legal boundaries around privacy were crossed. As part of this process, the extremes to which the Mail on Sunday used distortive, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to target The Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display.
We feel honesty and integrity are at the core of what matters; or as it relates to the Mail on Sunday and Associated Newspapers, their lack thereof.
Nonetheless, we respect the Judge’s decision as the strong case against Associated will continue to focus on the issue of a private, intimate and hand-written letter from a daughter to her father that was published by the Mail on Sunday. This gross violation of any person’s right to privacy is obvious and unlawful, and the Mail on Sunday should be held to account for their actions.”
As for how The Daily Mail is responding to this decision, they got the one editor who didn’t bust an overexcited nut all over their keyboard, causing it to malfunction, to write up this melodramatic ass headline:
The legal expert who told The Daily Mail that Meghan’s case is now a flaming failure (which is also one of my nicknames!) is named Mark Stephens. Is it just a coincidence that Mark’s initials are MS and the initials of Meghan’s messy half-sister Samantha Markle are SM? Is it also a coincidence that his name is Mark and Samantha’s last name is MARKle? I think not! Good lord, Samantha Markle! If you’re going to pretend to be a lawyer to get an easy check from The Daily Mail, at least change up your fake name completely. I mean, ALLEGEDLY, ALLEGEDLY! Shit, I do not want to take time out from making an ugly mound of disgustingly-tasting sourdough bread to get yelled at by a lawyer in an old-timey powdered wig during a Zoom call. Or do I? That could be my new kink.