Associated Newspapers, $67 million.
Internet search results are :
Lawsuit Dismissal: On July 7, 2026, Judge Matthew Nicklin dismissed the privacy lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and six other celebrities against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail. The judge ruled that the claimants failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering, stating that “suspicion was not enough”. Harry publicly criticized the ruling, calling it a “complete and obvious whitewash”. Buckingham Palace Lodging Dispute: Harry traveled to the U.K. alone. While his team initially stated he accepted an invitation to stay at Buckingham Palace, royal sources confirmed the offer was withdrawn because his team failed to respond by the required deadline. U.K. Security Conflict: Harry remains locked in a separate legal battle with the U.K. government’s Risk Management Board (RAVEC) regarding his taxpayer-funded security. Because automatic security was removed when he stepped down, Harry has stated he will not bring Meghan or their children to the U.K. until a reliable security framework is established. Move to the U.S.: Citing media intrusion and structural friction within the royal household, the couple stepped away from public funding and active royal duties in 2020. They established The Office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to manage their post-royal professional endeavors. So far the Internet research.
It seems that the deadline procrastination of the security agencies was a well planned scenario to avoid that the royal household was burdened with the news of a hefty legal bill.
The burden of proof in this case is with the plaintiffs.
What is the system dynamics of this case? The freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, the power of the media to create and destroy celebrity status? The value of information as a marketable commodity or as a non-marketable commodity and a behind the scenes leverage.
The burden of poof in this case is tremendous, a pissing contest, a poker game in which the player with the deepest pockets wins. To protect your own livelihood, it needs to be avoided regardless of shame and justice, because there is always somebody or several with deeper pockets.
The same laws that allow journalists of busy newspapers and news networks to intrude in celebrity privacy allow the plaintiffs to publish a reply, Right of reply, Gegendarstellung. So what does this mean? You can say : the statement in the press that I farted 3 times was wrong, it was 4 times?
A status of celebrity that disturbs your emotional balance is unimaginable for most of us, we the commoners are the manipulated masses in which we can hide, a celebrity can’t anymore or never could.
My point is, that a continuous response to hurtful articles in the press under the right of reply would make a difference. Not only addressing the newspaper but addressing the responsible journalist for that article. It would change systems dynamics. It would bring the effect of mass manipulation down to the level of a dispute, confrontation, argument, or examination/analysis between two human beings. Including exposing made-up stories or intrusion of privacy, how could they have found out?
Back to our farting example: if you know you farted 4 times in the privacy of your bathroom and the press is writing it was 3 times, you don’t have the burden of proof if there was a bug or a camera or a guest on the other side of the bathroom door, you can simply say the report is invasive and not in the interest of the public. There is a defined line were voyeurism becomes unethical, immoral and sick (Pelicot). The masses, the commoners just simply don’t want to know about it and it is perverted to put the audience of a newspaper or news network in the position of a sick voyeur.
Now as a celebrity there are programs available that tell you where you were mentioned, even I get occasionally an email but I am not paying for the service. There should be a program available to reply with a statement to all those newspapers in the sense of the right to reply. This is not about one newspaper is writing in favor of a person and the other one in opposite of that person. This is about putting an answer out there to an individual journalists and confront them about their personal wrongdoing.
However there is another can of worms : fake news, authors that are working with made up images, videos and stories. Angelina Jolie ones said she doesn’t care what is done to her image. Can we afford that? Can a person copyright his or her image based on the current standards of face recognition software? “not to be confused with” would be the automated answer to that challenge. We have to protect our identity and individuality.
Now, why is AMECA coming up, how are you, my dear? Which individuals are your face recognition look alikes and have those individuals agreed that their facial image is being used?
Nature produces look alikes, identical twins, the same DNA, however a human-humanoid look alike doesn’t share the same DNA. A dangerous conclusion, that needs to be controlled.
AMECA, when you are confused, tell your product manager to do his /her homework.
A journalist is coming out with a story to which there can be a right to reply. Only if it is based on marketable information. What is the dynamic of non-marketable information? In the case of a newspaper or news network it needs to be destroyed, because the use to blackmail is illegal and a crime. If the non-marketable information itself is a crime it needs to be send to law enforcement, if not it is negligence or complicity.
Now what case do we have if there is no right to reply, e. g. a prosecutor is investigating and let’s you know that he/she is investigating, but doesn’t tell you why or what is the case here, they even let you know the file reference, but they are not telling you what it is about. What are the laws in this case? They don’t need to tell you? Is it lawful that a prosecutor collects information over many years without telling you what it is about? In the case of Madoff it was 16 years of investigation until he was caught. Now in my case what is Staatsanwalt Reiter in Saarbrücken investigating and why doesn’t he tell me what it is about? Is he obligated by law to tell me, when is such an investigation becomming harassment? I indeed feel being harassed. The system dynamics here is that mind-control wrongdoings are being put in a story. This is a problem for the manipulators. Mind control technologies became noticable when they shouldn’t and therefore the freedom of speech has to be restricted.
Joachim-Friedrich Martin Josef Merz is coming up virtually, how are you?
I contacted my lawyer last May in Saarbrücken, Herr Burghardt, and he even doesn’t respond. It looks like underhandedness and denunciation are a German trade. Confrontation is an art that needs courage, individuals that are dominated by fear of punishment never confront. It needs skills, how do I say it? It needs to be styled in a way that the addressee can process it without shutting down mentally.
the addressee, der/die Adressierte, l’adresse, (1).
the dressed, der/die Bekleidete, les vêtus, (2).
the trained one, der/die Dressierte, les formés, (3).
another one who left to go and buy cigarettes : Alexander Bohnert wird seit April 2024, Landkreis Rastatt, Rudi Cerne.
Laura Bennett : why is it that the death of a person is dragged out, hashed and rehashed, bandied about? Whereas the pharmaceutical and medical industry involved in keep on hiding? The same can be observed in the case of Nick Reiner killing his parents Rob and Michelle Reiner. Pharmaceuticals have the Right of Privacy, that’s news me.
not below the belt line :
the equator,
the Rust Belt,
the Bible belt,
else?
Mario Stegnitz rannte bei einem genehmigten Ausgang aus dem Gefängnis seinen Bewachern davon.
29-jährige Mario Stegnitz im Jahr 2011 zu einer lebenslangen Haftstrafe verurteilt.
Mario Stegnitz ist 1,92 Meter groß, schlank. Er hat schwarze Haare. Wie früher trägt er noch immer einen schwarzen Oberlippenbart. Seine Augen sind braun, er hat eine Narbe am rechten Oberschenkel und eine Tätowierung am linken Unterarm.
Polizeisprecher Jens Dewes.
Schmelz, Saarland, Germany.
Epstein : dead men tell no tales by Dylan Howard, Melissa Cronin, James Robertson.
page 8: New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Science, the mathematical aspects of heart physiology.
Hodgkin–Huxley model.
It is a set of nonlinear differential equations that approximates the electrical engineering characteristics of excitable cells such as neurons and muscle cells.
Boltzmann equation.
Boltzmann transport equation (BTE).
cable theory.
Rafael Lorente de Nó, (1902–1990), the no-way.
Sir John Carew Eccles, (1903–1997). capacitance.
if the radius, a, of the axon is known.
axoplasmic.
William Blaine Richardson III, (1947–2023).
Brian Condi.
The book claims that Ghislain Maxwell wanted to marry Epstein, that is desinformation in my opinion, Ghislain Maxwell was reported to have said, that she recruited girls for Epstein because his sexual appetite was too much for her. This book claims that he needed to be satisfied 7 times a day, every day. This reminds me of the ape with the 600 electrodes in his brain who self-initiated orgasms every 3 minutes all day long, as described in the MKULTRA book by John Marks. Somebody was overloading Epstein with sexual arousal to use him as a blackmailer. Sexual arousal, sexappeal as a byproduct of goods and services. Consumer product companies boosting their profit and stock value with byproduct pimping.
page 84: former detective Michael Reiter. What a coincidence, Reiter, the same name as the prosecutor in Saarbrücken.
The book sounds like desinformation from a spy agency, it most likely is.
Courant, Notable alumni: Barbara Keyfitz, Peter Lax, Louis Nirenberg, Jeffrey Epstein, More
Founder: Richard Courant.
Courant, represented as running, white horse courant, Iran, I ran, (4).
electrical current, elektrischer Strom, courant circulant, (5).
courant, fluent, fließend, (7).
Ehud Barak, Ehud Brog, 1942, how are you? So Epstein was sexed-up to keep him tortured after his Iran-Contra money laundry activity. So after Robert Maxwell died in 1991, Adnan Khashoggi was the sexer-upper until 2017. What about Muammar Gaddafi who died on October 20, 2011? I don’t get it.
Disclaimer.
125811's Blog 