Do you think Melissa will sue for abuse? TT and others have done reading saying she’s angry and gonna come for Meghan at least legally, but no one knows for what

At this point, I’m thinking no, and that’s because I’m thinking the BRF got her to sign something saying she wouldn’t sue in exchange for public flattery and money. 

I also think it has to be considered what exactly Melissa would want to achieve by suing? If it’s money, then there’s only so much of that she would get even with a lawsuit. And it sounds like she already got some from BRF. Plus, you have to consider the amount of time it would take things to go through the court system. It would be at least several months before she would get something that made it worthwhile to sue.

However, if she goes to the press, then she can likely get what she wants off her chest much more quickly and move on. It wouldn’t surprise me at this point if she went to the press, and then the BRF–excluding Meghan and probably Harry, of course–did not refute Melissa’s claims of what went on behind the scenes. I almost expect some sort of merching expose to happen by the first week of December.

image

MM is not meant to be a royal which is painful clear BUT I wouldn’t put it past Harry and Meg to try to”change the rules” on baby making for Royals lol so they could use a surrogate, use PR against “Royal Rules” on how it’s hard for a woman to have a child (which is true). Then another “War of the Traditions/protocol” will emerge making BRF the bad guy. Don’t underestimate this woman’s need to get what she wants even if she’s not maternal. Anon is right, she has nothing else. 👰+💎💷🛍👑👶=😍😈

The difference between having a surrogate carry her baby (because Megs can’t do it) and her merching & pr extravaganza is HUGE. Like, how would they hide it? Megs wouldn’t be pregnant and people would notice. Do you really think she would be able to gain that much weight to convince people she’s pregnant? She’s tiny. If she were truly pregnant, then it would be obvious. Then what are you going to do with the surrogate? Like, no one she knows would notice that she had a baby and doesn’t have it? Like, people wouldn’t possibly talk and then go to the tabloids? This would be a HUGE firestorm in the UK. 

The law looks pretty clear to me

image

Look at that last line there: “Surrogacy contracts aren’t enforced by UK law, even if you’ve signed a deal with your surrogate and have paid for her expenses.” It is NOT a legally enforceable contract. Surrogate is legally able to keep the kid if she wants.

NO WAY would Charles or the Queen give the okay for this to be done. What do you think would happen if the surrogate mother decided she wanted to keep the baby? SCANDAL!! And one that would get maximum visibility.

image

Nearly $4.7 billion awarded in Johnson & Johnson baby powder lawsuit

tpfnewsdesk:

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis jury on Thursday awarded nearly $4.7 billion in total damages to 22 women and their families after they claimed asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer in the first case against the company that focused on asbestos in the powder.

The jury announced the $4.14 billion award in punitive damages shortly after awarding $550 million in compensatory damages after a six-week trial in St. Louis Circuit Court.

Johnson & Johnson called the verdict the result of an unfair process that allowed the women to sue the company in Missouri despite most of them not living in the state and said it would appeal, as it has in previous cases that found for women who sued the company.

“Johnson & Johnson remains confident that its products do not contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to pursue all available appellate remedies,” spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said.

Mark Lanier, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that Johnson & Johnson had covered up evidence of asbestos in their products for more than 40 years.

Medical experts testified during the trial that asbestos, a known carcinogen, is intermingled with mineral talc, which is the primary ingredient in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said asbestos fibers and talc particles were found in the ovarian tissues of many of the women.

“We hope this verdict will get the attention of the J&J board and that it will lead them to better inform the medical community and the public about the connection between asbestos, talc, and ovarian cancer,” Lanier said. “The company should pull talc from the market before causing further anguish, harm, and death from a terrible disease.”

During closing arguments on Wednesday, Lanier told the jurors this case was the first where jurors saw documents showing that Johnson & Johnson knew its products contained asbestos and didn’t warn consumers, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

The company has been sued by more than 9,000 women who claim its talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson has consistently denied that its products can be linked to the cancer.

Goodrich said the verdict awarding all the women the same amount despite differences in their circumstances showed evidence in the case was overwhelmed by prejudice created when so many plaintiffs are allowed to sue the company in one lawsuit.

“Every verdict against Johnson & Johnson in this court that has gone through the appeals process has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials which have been reversed,” she said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said punitive damage awards are limited by state law to five times the amount of compensatory damages awarded and defense lawyers probably would file a motion to reduce the award.

Six of the 22 plaintiffs in the latest trial have died from ovarian cancer. Five plaintiffs were from Missouri, with others from states that include Arizona, New York, North Dakota, California, Georgia, the Carolinas and Texas.

One of the plaintiffs, Gail Ingham, 73, of O’Fallon, Missouri, told The Post-Dispatch that she was diagnosed with stage-3 ovarian cancer in 1985 and underwent chemotherapy treatments, surgeries and drug treatments for a year before being declared cancer free in the early 1990s.

Ingham, who used baby powder for decades, said she joined the lawsuit because women who use baby powder “need to know what’s in there. They need to know what’s going on. Women need to know because they’re putting it on their babies.”

Nearly $4.7 billion awarded in Johnson & Johnson baby powder lawsuit

You also missed an important part about annulment, if the person you are married to hids information about a previous marriage than you are eligible for annulment.

People keep saying that, but that option doesn’t appear on the forms. 

https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/apply-for-an-annulment

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688088/d8n-eng.pdf

image

“Hiding information about a previous marriage” isn’t on the annulment petition. I’ve looked at it. Hiding a marriage would only be relevant if someone was still married to that person while getting married to someone else, aka polygamous marriage. The voidable options are directly posted above.

I can’t even find that on the supporting notes for the petition paperwork, and you can take a look at them here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688091/d8n-notes-eng.pdf

Isn’t she a two time divorcee. This is her third marriage. So essentially isn’t this marriage illegal and against the law. Thanks NYC! ♥️

Actually, I don’t think her relationship & living together with Cory meets the standard for common-law marriage in Ontario. Canada leaves it up to provincial jurisdiction. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Ontario

nycrealroyal:

Like I said before, I need to check the British law. Don’t forget Cory, she was in a civil union according to the canadian law. 😘😘

In Ontario, the Ontario Family Law Act specifically recognizes common-law spouses in section 29, dealing with spousal support issues; the requirements are living together continuously for no less than three years[13] or having a child in common and having “cohabited in a relationship of some permanence”. The three years must be continuous, although a breakup of a few days during the period will not affect a person’s status as common law.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/common-law-unions-in-canada/

So Cory and Megs didn’t meet the three-year requirement in Ontario, and Toronto is in Ontario.