Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could have an intense fight on their hands, which may not work in their favor if their recent invasion of privacy against the corrupt paparazzi ever saw a lawsuit.
Last week, in a complaint filed in court in Los Angeles on behalf of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and received by Fox News, celebrity executive lawyer Michael J. Kump said the lawsuit alleged a “serial invasion of privacy” by a 14-month-old child in his own dome, “except” the desire and responsibility of any parent to do what is necessary to protect their children from this madness “.
Markle (38) and Harry (35) said boulevard harassment finally came to mind when they saw that a photo of their son Archie had been offered to the media, which was allegedly taken by a family trip to Malibu when he was shot while he was being shot. in their yard, he didn̵7;t know about them.
MEGANIAN MARKS AND SECURITY OF ARCHIE DECISION TO DECIDE MEGXIT, PRINCE HARRY’S PAL CLAIMS
“Every individual and family member in California has a legal right to privacy in their home. No robot, helicopter or telephoto lens can take away this right, “Kump said in a statement to Fox News on Thursday. “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are suing to protect their young son’s right to privacy in their house without the intervention of photographers and to expose and stop those who seek to profit from these illegal acts.”
Sussexes sues three different defendants, John Doe, in a complaint hoping to identify the culprit and inform potential buyers that such images have been illegally cut off. They also order any illegal photographs of Archie to be handed over immediately, and seek compensatory and repressive damages as a result of further measures.
In an interview with Fox News, he considered executive litigation Tom Lallas of Levy, Small and Lallas in Los Angeles – who is not dealing with this case: “I don’t want their claims lost in the mix and layered with many nuances, but against which they will win? It’s like planning a heavyweight fight, but not inviting another boxer into the ring. ‘ “
MEGAN MARKET AND PRINCE HARRY’S SON ARCHIE TURNS 1, RECEIVES APPLICATIONS FROM QUEEN, PRINCE WILLIAM AND KATE
Lallas – incumbent lawyer for the Marvel Stan Stan icon before his death – called Mark and Harry’s invasion of privacy against the three John Doe defendants “extremely unusual” and “extraordinary” based on the method used by the Dukes and Duchess of Sussex to suppress any distribution of photographs their toddler son Archie 1 in their garden, which they claim was illegally made using long lenses, robots and helicopters.
“We have studied the complaint and it is extremely unusual. And by that I mean that the complaint does not mention any specific defendant – neither an entity nor an individual, “said Lallas. “This is the first time I’ve seen it in 45 years of practicing law.”
Lallas said that the protection of personal data is “extraordinary” because the US legal system is based on what is called an adversarial system – the concept is that there are at least two parties consisting of a petitioner and a defendant.
PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN MARKLE SUE FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY OVER SON ARCHIA PHOTOS
“The purpose of this adversarial system is for the parties to have invested in legitimate legal rights that they will protect and enforce before litigation occurs in civil proceedings,” Lallas explained. “We don’t have it here.” There are prosecutors, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan, but they are not accused at the table. ‘ “
Lallas said, “So what do we have? In my view, it is always important to assess what is the aim of the applicants in the dispute. The first question is: “They really expect to be sentenced and recover [photos] with paparazzi? “And as a forensic lawyer, my answer would be unnerving. No way.'”
The lawyer pointed out that he was a longtime peer representing lawyers Markle and Harry, Dale Kinsell, and Michael J. Kump, whom he considered “perfect” and “generally respected.”
Lallas said he certainly understood the reason for bringing an action of this nature on the table and explained that the current privacy statutes created an arena for such a possibility.
MEGHAN MARKET, PRINCE HARRY: REPORTS ON “MORE PREVALENT” DRONS NEAR THE AREA OF LIVE SUSSEXES, THE SOURCE SAYS
“There is a principle in litigation that you can designate Defendant Doe as a party, and that is under section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” Lallas said. “And the idea is – let’s say you’re hit by a car and you have a car accident and you have a vehicle license plate, but you don’t know who the driver was.” If you have a license plate, you can identify the registered owner and then sue the registered owner and name the driver as the opponent of the Doe, where you are going to obtain a discovery that will allow you to identify the opponent of the controlled Doe. “
“But at least you know who one of the parties is, and you correctly name the party that is the responsible party,” he continued. “In this case, the plaintiffs would not know the identity of the paparazzi if he walked in his front door with a bouquet of flowers.”
Based on personal experience, Lallas believes that the case of Markl and Harry has “no reasonable expectations.”
“Paparazzi or multiple paparazzi are just a few camera guys, and the likelihood that these camera boys have some significant assets that would allow them to recover any meaningful economic damage, whether legal, repressive or otherwise, is dead on arrival.” he said.
“So how do they get what they want to achieve?” He thought, explaining that there is usually 60 days for a petitioner to file a complaint. However, some “friendly, devoted and liberal” judges may set a time limit of 90 to 180 days for a summons and a complaint.
THE MEGHAN MARKET, PRINCE HARRY’S SON ARCHIE, HAS AN “UNFORTABLE” HEIGHT IN LOS ANGELS: ROYAL EXPERTS
“But here you think it’s not possible – no one serves,” Lallas said, calling the complaint a “fishing trip.”
“Basically in disclosure – which means receiving statements, delivering requests for documents and obtaining documents and delivering hearings, and the principle emerges that it must be adapted to specific allegations of complaint and contentious matters. litigation and it can’t just be a fishing trip, “said Lallas.
A firm partner added: “This is the main fishing trip, because if you think that the plaintiffs and their lawyers have brought a civil action in this case without naming a specific defendant who would try to appear and how he would do so?”
MEGAN MARKET, PRINCE HARRY REMAINING MILLION 18 MILLION, NEVER OVER CHANGE MANSION OWNERSHIP OF TYLER PERRY, REPORT ON
“They would serve as summonses and notices of imposition and attempt to make statements by third parties to expose the paparazzi or parties responsible for deploying drones over the court of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but without the usual protection in a civil action in which two parties are in an adversarial context. “who have legitimate interests and rights to protection,” Lallas said. “I have never seen a clearer fishing expedition that results from the fact that there are no specific defendants named in this action. “
Lallas claimed that Harry and Markle were engaging in a “calculated strategy” to allegedly create a “cooling effect” not only for paparazzi who were trying to get rid of the allegedly illegal images of Archie for a big profit, but also “for tabloids to discourage them by creating likely financial penalties for such conduct. “
Lallas said the case brought a bit of irony in the sense that Harry and Markle, on behalf of their son, “want to prevent unwanted publicity”, on the other hand, the mechanism they have chosen is to create more publicity to try to create a brand. on the public stage, which will allow the boulevards of the paparazzi to know that they will enforce their legal rights wherever possible. “
MEGAN MARKET, PRINCE HARRY PREPARE A NEW VIDEO ARCHIE FOR ITS FIRST BIRTHDAY
“And I think it’s quite obvious that we’re trying to evaluate the strategy and approach that they’re looking for publicity that will create a cooling effect to try to create privacy,” he said.
Lallas likened the idea of a media entity to obtaining and publishing photographs from a source to the way a journalist falls on his sword to protect the identity of his own sources.
MEGHAN MARKLE HAS “AMERICANIZED” PRINCE HARRY WITH LOS ANGELES MOVE, JULIE MONTAGU SAYS: “I LOVE IT”
He added: “There is a real question as to whether this type of litigation could ever be successful in finding out who the paparazzi are photographing. That is an open question. It is a strange, unorthodox and unusual situation where there is probably no real likelihood of financial and economic recovery and must therefore be assessed on the basis of what other objectives lawyers and plaintiffs are seeking to achieve. ‘ “
In addition, Lallas stated that under Statute 1708.8 “A” and “B” of the Civil Code, which protects privacy rights, it is intended to prevent the use of devices to challenge zones of reasonable expectation of privacy for humans, which is the essence of Harry and Markle the demands are very clear.
“It’s not just the license fee, but you and me in our garden,” he said. “As part of its policy, the California State has concluded that we should have reasonable expectations regarding privacy rights that are protected from being attacked and intruded by third parties that have no legitimate purpose in obtaining content or images and images.”
CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NEWS
“At this point, I think there is no doubt that they have legitimate rights that deserve protection. It’s just that it’s not – it’s an old story that we don’t know what we don’t know. And they have no idea who is responsible here. “
The Associated Press contributed to this report