The Letter Case ~ Will ANL Appeal?
The People Lack Faith In Justice After Warby's Judgment
From a legal perpective in the Letter Case, Warby delivered the bare minimum in upholding the misuse of private information laws, but could there have been a different outcome if members of the Royal Household gave their statements as requested?
When people can see smoke and fire, they want to find out the source and put it out - to find the answers. Even if a judge closes the door and says, ‘There’s nothing to see’, people won’t believe them when they can still see the smoke, and know they are being lied to.
The atmosphere is tense, for while a few people are relieved they may not have to testify or reveal their identities or the part they played in this saga (for now), the victory is supposed to be about protecting the privacy of public figures, and that of letters. That doesn’t apply when letters are used for PR purposes, or when public figures leak information, but sue when the said information doesn’t lead to the desired result. This is what this case is really about – attention, and control.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/02/13/the-letter-case-trial-denied-is-that-biased-justice/
The mood of the masses is that of anger though, and both the Courts and the Royal Family have lost the support of many in a single day. People will always consider that there may have been foul play, and that they protected MM and other dubious dealings. Yet we live in a era where we expect mutual respect, and where there is a tacit and unspoken agreement of transparency, to a degree at least. That mutual trust has been broken, but how can it be fixed, or can it even be fixed?
I have decided to try and encapsulate the mood of the People – their disappointment that justice was not done. If the case went to trial and ANL lost fair and square, then the public would accept that, but to have the opportunity to defend oneself is a fundamental right, that was taken away with a hastily agreed summary judgment that seemed less than adequate.
An appeal would be backed by the public, not because they love the tabloids, or because they are interested in the gossip, but because they seek the truth. A trial is a truth seeking process, and the summary judgment (not a mini-trial but is really) was not a truth seeking process, but used some bare legal principles to get it passed. The dangerous unspoken precedent set here is that you can lie under oath several times and not get punished for it. If anything, this will encourage a flood of cases, and people will be encouraged to give statements that favour them and that are inaccurate. That doesn’t bode well for the judicial system, and it is important that such behaviour is discouraged. Did Warby do that? Isn’t that his role? Did he do this to pass the buck, and to give MM a win, and let someone else deal with the PR on appeal? An appeal is when the gloves come off and magnifying glasses come out, and the other side takes control.
The People are angry and feel let down by the Royal Family (The Queen) and the Courts, and this is during a time where we depend on bodies that embody trust, justice, and integrity. There is a sense of betrayal and hopelessness, and sadly BP have to shoulder some of the blame. Hiding behind the gates of the palace hasn’t helped boost public confidence or morale, when the nation needs it most. People feel that their loyalty has been breached by the events over the last few years, and the Court case added more fuel to the raging fire of discontent and dismay.
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/p/harry-markle/comments#comment-list
(A thread on the Letter Case where you can discuss the issues.)
The Palace Four still have answers that the public seek. Knauf left the Sussexes in April 2019, just after the Letter Case began, and Jones left at the same time. Latham had just joined (but I believe she covered her back before leaving in March 2020), and Cohen left in October 2019 when the lawsuit was filed. Now that they have been named, the People will demand answers, and it matters not that they don’t have to testify for the time being. I feel it would be better if they did rather than carry the weight of suspicion for the rest of their lives. History will not be kind to them, and they will be seen as betrayers until they tell their story. A cloud of doubt will hover over them, as they wear a badge of ‘no integrity’ until they do. They are/were servants of the Crown, but where is their duty of care to the People and more importantly to Justice?
EDIT (14.02.21): Since writing the above last night, The Sunday Times today reports that the Palace Four were willing to assist:
It is understood that, as a “credible collective”, they were keen to give their “recollection of events”. A senior royal source said the group was not “duty-bound to sit here and be silent”, adding, “It’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant.” Another said they were “shocked” by the judgment.
However, isn’t this damage limitation or a poor attempt? They should have given witness statements in December as requested (their identities were named in September 2020), but hid behind a letter from their legal team stating they would only assist if necessary. That tallies with their’ relieved’ statement a few days ago, but is in stark contrast to the ‘keen to give’ comment. As for sitting in silence, they did for more than a year when MM made her V1 Particulars of claim that was riddled with inaccuracies and improper pleadings.
As for the copyright issue, the only (key) staff around in August 2018 were Jason Knauf, Samantha Cohen, and Amy Pickerill. Knauf and Pickerill now have returned to the Cambridges in different roles, and Cohen had resigned back in October 2019.
If an appeal is denied, then the question is why? There are many questions left unanswered, and it will give reporters the thirst to uncover the truth. Does BP really want more dirty laundry to be uncovered? Personally, I love a good appeal!
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/p/petition-a-message-to-her-majesty/comments#comment-list
(Click to sign the petition to request Her Majesty to remove the dukedom of Sussex)
With thanks to Artemis Goog for her portrait of Warby. I had requested it for my summing up, but decided it was apt for now. There are other less flattering versions available that would be more suited to Punch if we were in the 1840s.
The release of the 'confidential information' today in a bid to look like the perfect couple in love adds credence as to why MM's legal team sought a SJ at that specific time. They had to throw out FF, and nothing else was working. They applied for the SJ on the back of the confidential information knowing it could influence things, added with the timely op-ed in the NYTimes on miscarriages a month earlier. If you can't spot manipulation and planning, this is a lesson in it.
As far as I am concerned pregnancy is not al illness that requires special treatment in the courts. No one should be influenced by this at all, yet the PR will be aimed to influence. I doubt it will work, because no one really cares apart from the cult, and a few that can't see they have been had.
I believe that there other former aides that can 'shed light' on events such as Amy Pickerill (who is now back with the Cambridges), and the 'Four' that have agreed to named and to give evidence are ones that have been given assurances.
It is odd that after I wrote that the Palace Four need to come clean, The Sunday Times writes;
"It is understood that, as a “credible collective”, they were keen to give their “recollection of events”. A senior royal source said the group was not “duty-bound to sit here and be silent”, adding, “It’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant.” Another said they were “shocked” by the judgment."
A departure from the 'they were relieved' comment a few days ago. I put it to them that they are attempting damage limitation perhaps after what I wrote or not. If the above was true, then why did they not give witness statements in December as requested by the Defendant, (and who were known in September 2020) instead of a letter stating they would only testify if hey had to? If they were keen, they should have provided witness statements in December 2020 by January 2021 as requested.