What publicity could the Harkles drum up this week? WellChild promoted TOS as their patron again, and to be frank no one even bothers to lis
credit: A. Boffin / Harry Markle Blog Excerpt: "Meanwhile, Samantha Markle’s defamation case against her sister continues where TW’s team did not provide sufficient evidence to gain a stay in the proceedings to avoid having to deliver the requested discovery, and it means that the duo will also be deposed. The claim was that TW’s team or as she is called Defendant Markle believed that the case would be dismissed (hearing on 15 February 2023), therefore, delivering discovery documents would be ‘pointless’. It’s that kind of arrogance that the courts do not like, and that the legal team in the UK got away with under the weakness of Warby LJ. They tried the same tactic with him and he acquiesced, but the case is still a bit wishy washy in places from what we can see. Why is that? As I have said, the authors of ‘Finding Freedom’ have not been sued and if Samantha believes they have defamed her (by quoting words from TW) then she should have initiated proceedings against them to make her case stronger. Some of the issues that Defendant Markle, the Seal Singer is being asked to address appear to be frivolous and without any substance, where one would expect the brief to be tighter, specific, and to have some kind of resolution attached to each point.
Then, with each false statement, Samantha should be able to prove what ‘harm’ or malice has occurred as a result of the defendant’s actions. For example, the statement that Samantha changed her name back to Markle when TW started dating Harry, where TW claimed Samantha was trying to monetise the Markle name. How has that harmed Samantha? Did it turn the public against her, lead to stalkers and online attacks, or did it deter people from buying her book and she lost sales due to the false statement?
One also wonders why Samantha has not pursued the case in the UK, as in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant (TW) to prove the statements made are true. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Samantha) to prove the statements are false and that the defendant was at fault for making the statements in public. There is nothing stopping Samantha from pursuing a defamation case in the UK, but she would need legal representation which can be expensive. What does TW have to provide in her discovery? As Samantha has accused TW of using the resources of the Royal Family to mount an intentional and deliberate attack on her (and other Markle family members) to defame her, discovery could include the emails, texts, letters, and invoices that could pertain to such an action. While TW can try and claim that these no longer exist for security reasons, we all know that information is backed up on servers so are accessible as evidenced by the Jason Knauf emails and texts. Letters and invoices will not be erased either, especially if expenses (or third parties were hired) were paid to carry out such actions that were part of the alleged plan to defame Samantha Markle."
