Meghan feared Thomas Markle’s claims that she had “abandoned” him and would be repeated for failing to contact him, although he texted her, saying “try to persuade her to stop dealing with the media.” Court sued by his lawyers who submitted higher documents. The document states that she suggested to someone she knew approached by Omid Scooby and Caroline Durand, the authors of Finding Freedom, that the “correct position” could “deliver to the authors so that further misrepresentation does not occur.”
He explains how the Duchess of Sussex did not have “an item of information” about her communication with her father and if it was shared with the authors.
Meghan, 39, claims in a mail to the Associated Newspapers (ANL), Sunday’s publisher, that she sent Mr Markle, 76, in Mr Gust 2018 about the publication of parts of the signature letter.
She is seeking damages for allegedly using private information, violating the Data Protection Act, and infringing on copyright infringement in five articles published in February 2019, including extracts from a “private and confidential” letter to her father.
In September, ANL was allowed to rely on Meghan and Harry’s biography – Finding Freedom – published in Ingust, which stated its claim in a written defense to the Duchess High Court.
In her revised response to the ANL’s defense, Meghan’s legal team argued that neither she nor Harry cooperated with the book’s authors, nor did the authors meet, nor were they formally or informally interviewed for biographies.
He claims that Meghan was worried that her father’s story in the media that she left him and did not try to contact him (which was wrong) would be repeated, when in fact he tried to call her, and texted her. Was, and also wrote him a letter to try and persuade him to stop dealing with the media and he sent her a letter.
“Accordingly, she hinted to a person whom she knew had already been approached by the authors that the above correct position (many others who knew the person and the claimant) could communicate to the authors to prevent further misrepresentation. .
“She did not know to what extent or in what terms this one item of information about her communication with her father was shared with the author.”
Read more: Royal Family Live: Meghan and Harry’s actions ‘at any cost’
The document also denied that Meghan “knowingly allowed or permitted the entry of the domain to the public, knowingly about her personal relationship and / or communication with her father, including the existence of the letter and a description of its contents”.
And he says that “to allay suspicions”, Meghan did not respond to the authors “directly or indirectly” with a copy of the letter to her father, a description of her subject or her subject, and her father’s response.
The document goes on to say: “As far as the claimant is concerned, the authors did not have a copy of the letter or his father’s response.
“If anyone provided them with a copy, it would have been without her consent or knowledge and against her will.
The publisher argued that the Duchess had given the authors “Marklene” about Mr. Marks to set up her own version of her events in a way that suited her.
But Meghan’s lawyers denied the allegations and called the Duchess “collaborating” with the authors as a “conspiracy theory.”
They argued that any references to the book’s letter were only “extracted from the letter taken from the defendant’s own articles”.
