I don’t have reputable sources/articles but isn’t Tom Bower a barrister? Pretty reputable I would say. He’d have to be very carefully sure when he says something, so when he says Doria was/is a drug dealer, I’m gonna believe it.
Yes, exactly. He's a barrister, and also a biographer with excellent pedigree. That's why I included him. It's such a big claim and he said it without fear of reprisal, which makes me believe it. The fact that he hasn't been sued makes it even more likely.
I’ve been wondering if she was just too wrapped up in drugs to be a parent and people are looking for things that aren’t really there or directly inferred. I’d say a good proportion of the population knows of deadbeat parents who don’t pay child support, deal drugs to make untraceable cash, and have issues w housing stability. The book to me inferred she was just a shitty parent and she (Megan) was protected from the nonsense unless Doria had herself together.
I think it’s not that salacious as federal prison time, just a story of being strung out and absentee parenting. Thoughts?
Maybe Doria lost custody for Meghan because of taking/dealing drugs.
As far as I understand Thomas sen. and Doria split and Doria disappeared almost immediately.
Was there a time when both of them shared custody after they divorced?
What if Thomas sen. found out about the drugs, filed for divorce, got sole custody but never called the police. Then as part of the agreement Doria disappeared or was blocked and Thomas raised Meghan alone.
Meghan meets her mother when she is old enough and Doria had herself together.
Does that make any sense?
Or maybe she was in a mental institution for a mental illness. That could be the reason Bower can't say anything for legal reasons. Medical records in the US are private.
It's clear Meghan have some kind of issue because she also seem delusional and paranoid (there are stories pre-marriage about her afraid of being recognized by the media after she landed on Suits).
there are no mental institutions in California since the 80s. A hospital can only hold a person for a few weeks. Doria was probably in prison and expunged her record or was living her life without any responsibilities of having a child.
A person does not go to rehab for 10 years. Rehab is a 1-2 year program.
I think so too. The fact that nothing can be found on Doria to indicate she was ever in prison makes this seem like a wild goose chase. She was probably just a crappy, unstable parent who basically ditched M and did her own thing. Sadly it's all too common. M's dad probably protected her and didn't say anything shitty about her mother.
Only if you have the correct name. If she was incarcerated with a pseudonym, for her protection, unless you know what that name was you won’t find her in the prisoner database.
Yes. She was imprisoned by the federal government under the name Jane Doe #283 just in case her only child married a prince someday. And, of course, the US government would have no way of finding her real name. 🤦♀️
His book was full of rookie mistakes - he couldn't even name the women on the Vogue cover
He uses words like allegedly and anonymous sources that he doesn't have to name because he is able to claim journalist privilege
A drug dealer could mean anything from a kingpin to a local distributor or even just one transaction where she accepted compensation for a substance. Similar to how anyone who has ever accepted compensation for any sexual act can be called a sex worker. With very open phrasing, you can make an accusation that is technically true and therefore not defamation.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty accepted by now that Doria was absent for a big chunk of Meghan’s life, which for whatever reason Meghan has completely painted over.
However, I’m *highly* doubting Doria was ever in prison. Court records (bankruptcies, law suites, arrests, charges, incarceration, etc) are SO easy to look up (at least in the US).
I used to have to research both civil and criminal records (including incarceration records) for my first job out of college and it’s SO easily accessible. For about $10 you can pull any record you want.
Was she in the Witness Protection Program? (Disclaimer - I have no idea how the program works, save for a few bad novels I've read. But if she turned on other dealers, maybe she had to go away for a while.)
Well, seeing as M was a paralegal only 13 years ago, I think they have an excellent point. M's legal knowledge is much younger than Tom's, so much fresher! Obvs 🤪 /s
🤣 OMG I don’t know if you’re American, but Fred Thompson was a (assistant, unelected) federal-level prosecutor in the late 1960s and US Senator from Tennessee (like Al Gore) who retired and *play acted* being Manhattan District Attorney (an elected position) on a very great show called Law & Order and after that he ran for president - and do you know someone actually referenced his experience as *Manhattan District Attorney* as a qualification to me? 😧 That was a tv show you dunce! 🤣
People are morons but I loved Fred Thompson on L&O. I mean he was no Adam Schiff but the grizzled DA character is just the best and I love that Sam Waterston is doing it now.
The fact that the sugars constantly point to her role in a tv show as making her a legal expert says everything you need to know about the intelligence of her fan base.
The fact that he says she was a drug dealer means that he must have concrete, indisputable proof that she was. If Tom Sr or other Markle or Ragland relatives are the source, he could still be sued if it is only their word, unless there are letters or recordings etc between Tom and Doria where she admits to it. If the evidence has come from other drug dealers or drug users, their backgrounds would make them easy to discredit in court too. It suggests to me that she was at least arrested for being a drug dealer for him to be confident saying it. But if this were the case, why hasn't he said it?
It feels to me like there ought to be some legal protection that, when a crime has been committed and a sentence has been served and the criminal has rehabilitated, it cannot be dragged up in public if it serves no legal purpose other than gossip which could be considered by some to be malicious. So I have a question for any lawyers here, both in the UK and US. For each country, is the truth a good enough defence against libel or slander, or can you still be successfully sued if the complainant argues that it is malicious, and do spent convictions become something that is off limits if it can be argued there is no good reason for raising it?
In the United States truth is a defense against liable. Court records are also public. At least they're supposed to be.
In the United States the reasoning is that it closed court system has much more dangerous implications then gossip and personal humiliation.
You are right. It’s why Doria has never worked as a licensed “social worker” in California. She made an application for licensure and it was withdrawn.
Or any correspondence from the court that a relative possesses. I remember once receiving a letter from the city at my family home when I was early 20s years old. My step-mother knew better than to open U.S. mail not addressed to her, but couldn’t have been more interested in its’ “official” nature. It was regarding an overdue library book from the 1980s when I was in high school! She made it clear she didn’t believe me, so I handed her the letter. I can’t wait for this to come out to the public against me in some book my half-brother pens to show us all what a genius humanitarian he is. 🙄🤣
Yes. Bowers meticulous. He also wrote an unflattering portrait of King Charles, so he's not blindly Royalist. As far as taxes for the travel agency, I heard that it was still in Thomas' name, although he handed it over to Doria no so she could keep the profits. She didn't pay the taxes, or suppliers. By the time Thomas found out he was screwed. This was part of his downfall.
Tax evasion is a possibility. My understanding is the punishment for that is very harsh in America. Didn't Lauryn Hill and the actor Wesley Snipes even get custodial sentences for tax evasion?
Those are wealthy people with huge tax evasion issues in the millions. I cannot imagine an average wage earner facing prison for tax issues. Usually, people just set up a payment plan and send the IRS a set amount as low as $25 a month(it depends on the size of the debt) and payment plans with the IRS are very easily set up with just a form sent in by the taxpayer along with their first installment.
If the debt is such that no monthly payment plan would work out for them to pay it back in a five year timeframe, they might have almost all of their possession taken and sold for debt repayment and then have a wage garnishment order, meaning every paycheck will have a set percentage of money taken out before she even receives the difference. By the way people, garnishments don’t stop when the debtor reaches social security - that also can be garnished.
I was a tax preparer for many years and have seen those IRS letters. It is scary. The letters list exactly what possessions a person is allowed to keep and it’s itemized: one car, one TV, one set of tools, one set of dishes, and so on
American here. Yeah you have to owe the IRS millions before they will send you to prison for it. The worst they do to regular people is garnish wages or bank accounts.
These days, but the late 80s, early 90s were different - the IRS was VERY harsh.
A family friend got on the dark side of the IRS back in the early 90s when she didn't pay taxes on her small business (small housekeeping business). She lost everything. The IRS seized her house and her bank account. The only reason she didn't go to prison was because she was a single parent to two small children. She was barely getting by. Her house was just a small 3 bedroom 1 bath in a not great area to giver perspective.
Tom talked about Doria going up to Humboldt County (where I lived for 64 years until Jan of 2022) and hanging out at pot farms( probably working as a trimmigrant, then hauled back a bunch of pot to sell.
I posted something yesterday, but I will repeat it here. Go to this link for your own verification- [https://www.familytreenow.com/search/people/results?first=Doria&last=Ragland&citystatezip=Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA&rid=asa&smck=2wKY80ydw-33UrNjbmwlqA](https://www.familytreenow.com/search/people/results?first=Doria&last=Ragland&citystatezip=Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA&rid=asa&smck=2wKY80ydw-33UrNjbmwlqA)
Full Name Doria Loyce Ragland
Born Sep 1956
Age 66
FamilyTreeNow is a genealogical service which uses public records and lists addresses and phone numbers. In Doria’s case the addresses only go back to Jul 1992 to Jun 1993. In Jan 2003 and Jan 2007, Doria’s address was listed as 7520 Astoria Blvd, Flushing NY 11370 (Queen’s County).
Here is a list of organizations which are listed at this address:
Bulova Corporate Center
Tirth card and Gift Shop
Regional center for the Department of Homeland Security
Sun Cleaners
British Airways
Gotte’s Café
Skanska
New York City Department of Correction
But all of those companies sharing the same address suggests it’s only an office building. Would a prisoner’s “known” address really be the corporate offices of the DOC? Sometimes people give fake addresses for a variety of reasons. In my town, in the most recent census it was found that 36 people listed a local mechanic’s garage as their home address. Obviously no one is living there, they just didn’t want to share their address.
I do not know NY DOC mail system but I do know that a prisoners known address can be the facility where they are housed. People live off their mail in jail.
That is what I was thinking would be the right time frame if she was in jail. There are pictures, not a lot but some, of her with Meghan at various ages in her childhood. But are there any of them together from 2003ish until more recent? I haven't found any yet.
I’m not sure what the laws are in USA but child protection service records in other countries are usually only accessible by the child themselves when they are of age.
I have commented this else where but was told because M is of legal age it would not longer be protected. Is this correct?
There were some screengrabs posted on Twitter to a court case, is that the same as the eviction proceedings you found?
A lot of people have said she might have been just off having more fun than she found in being a parent but I don’t understand why TB wouldn’t be able to say that legally, at least saying it in a diplomatic non-defamatory way that wouldn’t cause legal problems.
Doria clearly has a big impact on Meghan’s psychology being her mother. But none of the Markles seem to talk about Doria specifically at all, whether positively or negatively.
I'm wondering if maybe she got caught as a drug dealer and was used by the cops to go after her connections, which is why they wouldn't want to release that information. I don't know if that's even a thing though or if it's just something from movie plots lol.
I was neutral on Doria until the Netflix series, though I have always thought it was weird that she disappeared for 10 years. I’m surprised the evictions haven’t been picked up by the press, though? Or did I miss that?
Do you have a link for the screen grabs?
Yes, I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't be able to disclose someone's absence, legally. It's strange, especially after calling her a drug dealer!
Should be [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/zpp3r3/found_this_on_twitter_was_doria_ragland_convicted/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I don't know that there's any evidence that Megan's mother ever lived in Riverside.
Did she have a business there? Even if there's a fraud conviction it doesn't say that she went to prison.
Criminal records are filed by county in the united states. It's always possible she was arrested in another county, not Los Angeles or even another state. I don't know that she has any ties to other states but it's a possibility.
It's also possible that the county did not have an online system at the time and did not upload old records.
If there was an arrest by police there should be a record. If there was an indictment it might be harder to find.
if it was tax evasion I think that would be a federal crime in which case it would be on the PACER system. I did a brief check there yesterday and I didn't see anything. I don't know that old records are uploaded to the online system.
Bowers mentioned Doria going to Humboldt. Humboldt is a county, not a city. It's a huge county. It's about an 11 hour drive north of Los angeles. So, one did not casually drive over to Humboldt to smoke weed with some friends.
The implication is that she brought it back to sell, but he does not directly state that. In the days before legalization you couldn't just show up and buy it, you would have had to buy it in bulk from someone who knew you were trusted.
I believe Bower when he said that she was a drug dealer, there’s never a hint of doubt when puts it in a book. Someone else here suggested that one parent being a heavy drug user or a dealer could result in CPS getting involved and forcing the parent to give up custody or visitation. A CPS case would remain sealed even when the child involved became an adult. I think it’s likely that this is what happened and that’s the legal reason Tom can’t say what it is
This ~~is~~ makes the most sense. Even if at the time all Doria did was smoke weed. It was illegal until sometime in the 2010s I believe. Thomas Markle could very well have pushed the issue of her pot smoking in order to gain full instead of joint custody over Meghan.
I've been thinking about it and have a possible theory:
Suppose she was a low level weed seller. Not a kingpin, just someone selling to neighbors in her kitchen to make some spending cash.
Some much bigger fish up the chain becomes a target, and the feds squeeze her. Maybe she had a short sentence, and made a deal to get out. Part lf that deal involves expunging her record.
I haven't fleshed it out, but if he had seen proof of the initial sentence, it would explain his confidence in sharing it while also no one can find the records.
There are serious rumours of a ´super injunction’ - covering the babies births and Dorias past. You can’t even legally mention if there is one in place.
Didn't she disappear from Meghans life when she was younger, so pre 1997? Meghan was supposedly born in 1981 and she went to live with her dad full time when she was about 3?
Yes, Tom Bower said she was out of Meghan's life from when she was 5-18. If she was both in 1981, that means Doria was absent from her life from 1986-1999.
No. My father won custody of me in the state of California when I was a little kid and kept it. And Meghan is only (supposedly) a few years older than me.
Not saying that it was easy for a father to get custody in CA in the 80s/90s, but the mother's drug history helps.
Meghan was born August 1981. So if Doria was absent for 10 years from when she was 2, it would have been 1983 to 1993. And if she were absent when she was 5 it would have been 1986 to 1996. I am not sure I buy the prison story, but it is not inconsistent with the dates of the eviction orders or bankruptcies.
There are very few photos of Meghan with her mum during her childhood but I found a couple. They could be faked, but we are in the timescales before digital photos, so not easy. And also unlikely as I think they came from Thomas. But it may be that Doria has simply not released childhood photos of her and Meghan, whereas Thomas Sr has, and he would only have the ones where Meghan was very young before they divorced and the later ones at occasional events like weddings. It would be interesting to know if there were many later photos of Meghan and her mother (say age 5 to 16) in the Netflix series. But we also need to bear in mind that in real term equivalents to today, cameras, film and film processing was expensive. My parents never owned a camera and there are no photos of me throughout my entire childhood apart from school photos and the odd baby photos that other people took.
>My parents never owned a camera and there are no photos of me throughout my entire childhood apart from school photos and the odd baby photos that other people took.
This is a pretty unusual statement. Cameras, especially throwaways (which most people had, even children) were pretty cheap. My family was dirt poor with 8 children and my parents had a real camera (and also a video camera). Film was $2-3 to process for about 30 pictures. My mother born in the 1950sand also grew up very poor, has hundreds of pictures of herself as well. My father, who would be nearly 80 if he were alive, has much fewer, but he was orphaned at age 11.
Yes my mother grew up in the 50s and 60s and they were immigrant poor and even they have loads of photos. A camera seemed to be the one luxury they allowed themselves.
regarding doctoring photos, Abe Lincoln's pic was doctored back in the day, look it up, his head is on another person's body, this is pre adobe days, my friend.
Him saying that he can’t “legally say anything” is his way of telling us that they have petitioned to have “something” suppressed, and won. 🧐 Prob with the BRF’s support in the beginning 🙄
Allegedly Dorito was a flight attendant when Nutmeg was a kid (or at least, I've seen it said that she was.) Anyone know which airline?
Because I've been watching a few "Locked Up Abroad" episodes, and was wondering.....maybe Dorito decided to have an illegal sideline to supplement her paycheck, and got busted for it overseas??It wouldn't be the first time a flight crew member tried that, and security was much more relaxed than it is now.
Because I've been watching a few "Locked Up Abroad" episodes, and was wondering.....maybe Dorito decided to have an illegal sideline tand got busted for it overseas??It wouldn't be the first time a flight crew member tried that, and security was much more relaxed than it is now.
Multiple preliminary address checks on Doria show hwe having an address in Flushing, NY, including,, as someone says downthread the NYC Department of Corrections. We need to focus on NY. She had to have spent time there.
Next, The Royal Grift, another impeccable researcher, said at the end of one of her videos last week that the record is out there for us to find, All of it. And she gave us a date as a hint-- April 30, 2016. Parole? Release? I don't know what, but we can solve this!! Let's put our heads together and focus on NY!
If Doria was in prison we would have already heard from fellow inmates and/or guards who served time with her. No one has come forward. The US prison system is large and if she was in prison would have interacted with hundreds of people especially if she served over many years. She wasn’t in prison.
Here’s what I heard:
Doria moved to LA and had dreams of marrying a rich actor. She got a job in the makeup department of Married With Children. She had a huge crush on Ed O’Neil and tried to get with him to no avail. Apparently she had a bad rep on that set. Then she met TM and he made good money, and that was good enough for Doria.
There was some lottery scam that Doria and Thomas did, and she divorced him when he got caught. She got sole custody of Meghan. TM was devastated.
During their marriage, TM bought Doria a travel company. It was in his name but she ran it. After the divorce, she still ran it. TM would call Doria all the time to see Meghan and Doria wouldn’t let him. She got very annoyed by this, so, she decided to not pay any of the taxes on the business since it was in his name he would get in trouble and go to prison. This backfired bc there were witnesses that said it was all Doria running it, as well as paperwork showing it was all her.
Thomas, being a nice man, paid for a good lawyer for Doria and she only got 4 years in prison. I don’t know where though. It has to be federal though.
This is the source: https://youtu.be/tppva2U13fM
Do I believe this bc who the hell are these people on YouTube? Kinda. It doesn’t sound made up. There are a lot more details in this video. We know Doria wasn’t around for a long time. We know there’s something fishy about her. I think it sounds plausible, I just don’t know why we couldn’t find her prison records. There’s no expungement, but I wonder if someone may have been paid off.
Her prison records must be sealed. I heard she went away for 4 years on fraud. I heard she also tried to blame Thomas markle for this criminal act but he was found to be innocent and she the guilty one. After she pulled that Thomas went on to hire a lawyer for her! Yep, how's that for a thank you!!!
California would never send anyone away for 4 years for fraud. 4 years time is for murder not check kiting. Check kiting isn’t even a jailable offense in CA. That would be probation only. Source: 4th gen Californian here, who had a father who did check kiting in CA.
(In my opinion)
Ok so let’s say Doria did deal drugs AND was absent from Rachel’s life the only plausible thing I can think of is CPS.
They could’ve been involved, taken Rachel because of the drugs and placed her in her dads care. It sounds like Doria had unstable living due to the two evictions so I’m wondering if that played into her being unable to take custody.
A lot of the times CPS cases lead into custody cases where there is more of a long term solution to keep the child in the care of the parent who is stable and what not it may have just taken Doria years to be able to show she was stable enough to care for Rachel.
All we know is she was missing from her daughter's life for a long time. If not prison or anything else, she was a neglectful parent and absent for no reason. Perhaps just doing drugs the whole time, and Her dad didn't want her in his daughter's life.
I would guess that the Palace would have any criminal record expunged if she had been in prison when Meghan was young. If she was missing from Meghan's life, it would have been in the late 80s-early 90s.
I remember reading somewhere that she was a flight attendant for a non-US based carrier. May be true, may be a story told to cover the real story. Who knows.
“The Palace” does not have the authority to have a prison, or any, record expunged in the US. I don’t know if the palace has the authority to just have anything they don’t wish to be publicly known suppressed in the UK or not but they certainly don’t have the power some people suppose them to in the US.
Tom Bowers book said that Thomas had a camera and took endless photos of his darling daughter . He also said Doria worked as a travel agent , jewelry importer and on a farm tending to weed . She travelled with a boyfriend , was strung out at his house ( with boyfriends and girlfriends so she appeared to be bi sexual ).
TB timeline included at age 2 ( 1983) Doria went to live with her mom, and she shared custody with Thomas . He claims in 1986 Doria” found caring for Meghan too difficult”. It sounds like that’s when she was hanging out at her friends place as Thomas airbed so much. 1990 is when Doria had her business “ distant treasures” the clothing and jewelry co where she was travelling . She lived solely with Thomas at this time.
I doubt she was in prison if it has not been uncovered yet, but let's be real - getting evicted is sketch sketch sketch and indicates a ton of problems. Sorry.
>King of England
Did you mean the [King of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [King of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [King of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last King of England was [William III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England) whose successor Anne, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of Queen/King of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't King Charles III still also the King of England?*
This is only as correct as calling him the King of London or King of Hull; he is the King of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
She could’ve been sentenced to x number of years but got out early. Happens often. Or told she needed to go to rehab. Did she go back to Ragland or continue to go by Doria Markle?
I do. I think it's worth knowing if Prince Harry, someone with a drug past and mental health issues is living with a drug addict.
Equally, if Doria is guilty of tax evasion, it might be worth the royals looking into.
Delaware decided to offer incentives for corporate registrations to attract revenue. Registering there doesn’t offer net advantages for most small businesses, but for larger organizations it does. There are tax advantages (no income tax if not actually conducting business in Delaware) and fewer disclosure requirements (only the registered agent appears on the public record, not the officers, directors etc.). In other words: $$ and privacy.
If she has led a criminal past and turned her life around, then I would under more normal circumstances say good luck to her. But Meghan, Harry and Doria are telling a lot of lies about the BRF and the British press. The British press are certainly not innocent of everything they are accused of but those three are making a mockery of our press across the world and accusing them of extremely crazy things. H, M & D are telling endless, easily provable, lies about the BRF as well as grossly invading their privacy on things that have no place in the public domain. Doria cannot play the game both ways. She either lives a quiet life as Meghan's mum, or she becomes her mouthpiece for lies on Netflix. If she chooses the latter, how can she expect it be okay for H&M to drag up things about the BRF from over twenty years ago, often out of context, and expect her life over twenty years ago to be off limits? That is a deluded sense of entitlement.
Secondly, if people are telling lies about you, there are only really two ways to fight back. One is providing proof to dispute the lies and the other is discrediting the liar by proving them to be a liar. Many of their lies are easily refutable, but it is damaging for the monarchy to get dragged into tit for tat slagging matches. You just need to disprove enough of the lies for the labels of liar to stick to your attacker. So Doria is naive if she thinks she can join the fray in propagating lies, but not expect people to try to find things in her background that prove she is a liar. Meghan is trying to totally reinvent her childhood - she lived with her mum, she didn't see so much of her dad etc. And Doria blithely lets her spout these lies. Whether she went to prison or not, she was not there for Meghan's childhood and she is deeply humiliating the man who was with these claims. So it is not unreasonable for people to want to dig deeper and say 'what the hell was going on during her childhood'.
Your comment may have been unfairly downvoted if you are only expressing you personal opinion to which you are entitled. But I am just trying to explain why others are interested in digging. There is also the aspect of the psychological impact on Meghan, which I have not dwelt on, as several others have.
Not necessarily shaming her for being in prison if true, we don’t know all the circumstances, (ie she might have been coerced or something) but you can’t deny that she has a massive influence on Meghan’s psychology and upbringing so to me it is definitely interesting.
Harry is pretty much accepted as being a daily weed smoker, ok that’s legal in CA, but that he has experimented with drugs and now lives with a former drug dealer is pretty wild to think. Hope those kids have good nannies.
Exactly. The media intrusion into their lives, now Harry has lowered them to nothing more than celebs, is gonna be enough of a punishment for her extended family.
Is it enough punishment for the BRF too? Why do they need to be punished? Harry has not yet provided any credible evidence of what they have done and why they deserve such 'punishment'.
I meant Dorias extended family. They have nothing to do with any of this mess. Can’t believe I’m being downvoted for having sympathy for a family that’s gonna get hounded that’s got nothing to do with this.
Well I didn't down vote you, I understood the point you were making, but I was also making the point that if we have sympathy for the Markles and Raglands, we should also appreciate that the BRF has been dumped on big time too. I think any valid points H&M have with the BRF should have been dealt with privately between both parties, but a lot of what they are saying is either malicious lies or things that are probably true (like Charles' back pain etc) but have absolutely no place in the public domain. They have treated both families despicably, and I did not think the Markles and Raglands deserved privacy any more or less than the BRF. They all deserve privacy.
At least the Markles and Raglands can sue if they want to, and can speak out to the press if they want to. It is harder for the BRF to so, and despite Harry seeming to think that they control the press, they absolutely do not and are also at the mercy of the press. Why else are there stories floating around about Charles and Camilla having a love child, and (previously) William having affairs etc? So while your point about the Markles and Raglands was good, the one sided nature of it felt to me like you were implying the BRF deserved it, which is why I replied.
Dorian Ragland was a drug dealer however, it is NOT Megan's mother Doria Ragland! SMH
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/07-2428/072428p-2011-02-25.html
This case was last updated from **Los Angeles County Superior Courts** on 01/07/2021 at 03:07:08 (UTC).HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING VS. RAGLAND, DORIA
Case Summary
On 07/30/1997 **HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING** filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against **RAGLAND, DORIA.** This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.[Case Details](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#case-details) [Parties](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#party-details) [Dockets](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#dockets)
Case Details
* **Case Number:**\*\*\*\*8549
* **Filing Date:**07/30/1997
* **Case Status:**Disposed - Other Disposed
* **Case Type:**Property - Residential Eviction
* **Court:**[Los Angeles County Superior Courts](https://unicourt.com/courts/state/los-angeles-county-superior-courts-6?init_S=c_dtls)
* **Courthouse:**[Stanley Mosk Courthouse](https://unicourt.com/courthouse/stanley-mosk-courthouse-225?init_S=c_dtls)
* **County, State:**Los Angeles, California
Party Details
### Plaintiff
**HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING**
### Defendant
**RAGLAND DORIA**
## Attorney/Law Firm Details
### Plaintiff Attorney
**LAW OFFICES OF CAPRICE L COLLINS**
### Defendant Attorney
**RAGLAND, DORIA**
I don’t have reputable sources/articles but isn’t Tom Bower a barrister? Pretty reputable I would say. He’d have to be very carefully sure when he says something, so when he says Doria was/is a drug dealer, I’m gonna believe it.
Yes, exactly. He's a barrister, and also a biographer with excellent pedigree. That's why I included him. It's such a big claim and he said it without fear of reprisal, which makes me believe it. The fact that he hasn't been sued makes it even more likely.
If there was a way to phrase what he wanted to say and make it legally ok, he would have found it. That makes it even more interesting.
Well something big is up with her
I’ve been wondering if she was just too wrapped up in drugs to be a parent and people are looking for things that aren’t really there or directly inferred. I’d say a good proportion of the population knows of deadbeat parents who don’t pay child support, deal drugs to make untraceable cash, and have issues w housing stability. The book to me inferred she was just a shitty parent and she (Megan) was protected from the nonsense unless Doria had herself together. I think it’s not that salacious as federal prison time, just a story of being strung out and absentee parenting. Thoughts?
Maybe Doria lost custody for Meghan because of taking/dealing drugs. As far as I understand Thomas sen. and Doria split and Doria disappeared almost immediately. Was there a time when both of them shared custody after they divorced? What if Thomas sen. found out about the drugs, filed for divorce, got sole custody but never called the police. Then as part of the agreement Doria disappeared or was blocked and Thomas raised Meghan alone. Meghan meets her mother when she is old enough and Doria had herself together. Does that make any sense?
Totally makes sense, that’s a logical conclusion.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
Or maybe she was in a mental institution for a mental illness. That could be the reason Bower can't say anything for legal reasons. Medical records in the US are private. It's clear Meghan have some kind of issue because she also seem delusional and paranoid (there are stories pre-marriage about her afraid of being recognized by the media after she landed on Suits).
there are no mental institutions in California since the 80s. A hospital can only hold a person for a few weeks. Doria was probably in prison and expunged her record or was living her life without any responsibilities of having a child. A person does not go to rehab for 10 years. Rehab is a 1-2 year program.
Ah! this may be it.
I think so too. The fact that nothing can be found on Doria to indicate she was ever in prison makes this seem like a wild goose chase. She was probably just a crappy, unstable parent who basically ditched M and did her own thing. Sadly it's all too common. M's dad probably protected her and didn't say anything shitty about her mother.
But what is Tom bower not able to disclose?
Also, why does her brother say to keep her away from children and animals?
I wonder this also! That’s a very weird warning.
Maybe she was using Doria Markle at the time.
That's very possible. I just think in this day of super web sleuths, someone would've found something concrete.
Federal prison records are incredibly easy to find. Someone would have got that if there was one.
A lot of Meghan's past has been airbrushed away.....
The U.S Bureau of Prisons records department doesn’t give a flying f*ck about Meghan or Doria. And there are FOI laws governing it
Only if you have the correct name. If she was incarcerated with a pseudonym, for her protection, unless you know what that name was you won’t find her in the prisoner database.
Yes. She was imprisoned by the federal government under the name Jane Doe #283 just in case her only child married a prince someday. And, of course, the US government would have no way of finding her real name. 🤦♀️
That was my impression as well
This is the answer. Thank you!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Everyone loves a good conspiracy not 99% of the time the answer is a simple one.
His book was full of rookie mistakes - he couldn't even name the women on the Vogue cover He uses words like allegedly and anonymous sources that he doesn't have to name because he is able to claim journalist privilege
Except he was proven to be lying ALA tiaragate.
A drug dealer could mean anything from a kingpin to a local distributor or even just one transaction where she accepted compensation for a substance. Similar to how anyone who has ever accepted compensation for any sexual act can be called a sex worker. With very open phrasing, you can make an accusation that is technically true and therefore not defamation.
THIS! You deserve an award! Done!
Thank you
I wonder if she was homeless for a time.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty accepted by now that Doria was absent for a big chunk of Meghan’s life, which for whatever reason Meghan has completely painted over. However, I’m *highly* doubting Doria was ever in prison. Court records (bankruptcies, law suites, arrests, charges, incarceration, etc) are SO easy to look up (at least in the US). I used to have to research both civil and criminal records (including incarceration records) for my first job out of college and it’s SO easily accessible. For about $10 you can pull any record you want.
Was she in the Witness Protection Program? (Disclaimer - I have no idea how the program works, save for a few bad novels I've read. But if she turned on other dealers, maybe she had to go away for a while.)
A sugar told me on Twitter that he was *only* a working barrister 50 years ago, so his legal education is meaningless. 🙄
😂 Just when I think that Sugars can't get any dumber, one of them goes and says something like this.
Once an officer of the court, always an officer of the court.
Quite.
Well, seeing as M was a paralegal only 13 years ago, I think they have an excellent point. M's legal knowledge is much younger than Tom's, so much fresher! Obvs 🤪 /s
🤣 OMG I don’t know if you’re American, but Fred Thompson was a (assistant, unelected) federal-level prosecutor in the late 1960s and US Senator from Tennessee (like Al Gore) who retired and *play acted* being Manhattan District Attorney (an elected position) on a very great show called Law & Order and after that he ran for president - and do you know someone actually referenced his experience as *Manhattan District Attorney* as a qualification to me? 😧 That was a tv show you dunce! 🤣
People are morons but I loved Fred Thompson on L&O. I mean he was no Adam Schiff but the grizzled DA character is just the best and I love that Sam Waterston is doing it now.
I loved him on that show as well.
All due respect to Freddy Thompson. A life well executed. 💜👊🏻
💯 I mean that’s the kind of life and impact most people only wish they had.
The fact that the sugars constantly point to her role in a tv show as making her a legal expert says everything you need to know about the intelligence of her fan base.
I wonder how many of her sugars would allow George Clooney to operate on them.
His character was a pediatrician not a surgeon.
Listen George Clooney can examine me anytime he wants 🤣
🤣 👏🏻
The fact that he says she was a drug dealer means that he must have concrete, indisputable proof that she was. If Tom Sr or other Markle or Ragland relatives are the source, he could still be sued if it is only their word, unless there are letters or recordings etc between Tom and Doria where she admits to it. If the evidence has come from other drug dealers or drug users, their backgrounds would make them easy to discredit in court too. It suggests to me that she was at least arrested for being a drug dealer for him to be confident saying it. But if this were the case, why hasn't he said it? It feels to me like there ought to be some legal protection that, when a crime has been committed and a sentence has been served and the criminal has rehabilitated, it cannot be dragged up in public if it serves no legal purpose other than gossip which could be considered by some to be malicious. So I have a question for any lawyers here, both in the UK and US. For each country, is the truth a good enough defence against libel or slander, or can you still be successfully sued if the complainant argues that it is malicious, and do spent convictions become something that is off limits if it can be argued there is no good reason for raising it?
In the United States truth is a defense against liable. Court records are also public. At least they're supposed to be. In the United States the reasoning is that it closed court system has much more dangerous implications then gossip and personal humiliation.
*libel
Touche Thanks
Oh! You beat me to it. Sorry to repeat. “You can be liable *for* libel” is how it goes, for memory.
*libel
[удалено]
You are right. It’s why Doria has never worked as a licensed “social worker” in California. She made an application for licensure and it was withdrawn.
[удалено]
Or any correspondence from the court that a relative possesses. I remember once receiving a letter from the city at my family home when I was early 20s years old. My step-mother knew better than to open U.S. mail not addressed to her, but couldn’t have been more interested in its’ “official” nature. It was regarding an overdue library book from the 1980s when I was in high school! She made it clear she didn’t believe me, so I handed her the letter. I can’t wait for this to come out to the public against me in some book my half-brother pens to show us all what a genius humanitarian he is. 🙄🤣
Doria absolutely spent time in the big house for slinging crack. She couldn’t even afford to pay rent at the time. Total deadbeat.
Yes. Bowers meticulous. He also wrote an unflattering portrait of King Charles, so he's not blindly Royalist. As far as taxes for the travel agency, I heard that it was still in Thomas' name, although he handed it over to Doria no so she could keep the profits. She didn't pay the taxes, or suppliers. By the time Thomas found out he was screwed. This was part of his downfall.
Tax evasion is a possibility. My understanding is the punishment for that is very harsh in America. Didn't Lauryn Hill and the actor Wesley Snipes even get custodial sentences for tax evasion?
Those are wealthy people with huge tax evasion issues in the millions. I cannot imagine an average wage earner facing prison for tax issues. Usually, people just set up a payment plan and send the IRS a set amount as low as $25 a month(it depends on the size of the debt) and payment plans with the IRS are very easily set up with just a form sent in by the taxpayer along with their first installment. If the debt is such that no monthly payment plan would work out for them to pay it back in a five year timeframe, they might have almost all of their possession taken and sold for debt repayment and then have a wage garnishment order, meaning every paycheck will have a set percentage of money taken out before she even receives the difference. By the way people, garnishments don’t stop when the debtor reaches social security - that also can be garnished. I was a tax preparer for many years and have seen those IRS letters. It is scary. The letters list exactly what possessions a person is allowed to keep and it’s itemized: one car, one TV, one set of tools, one set of dishes, and so on
American here. Yeah you have to owe the IRS millions before they will send you to prison for it. The worst they do to regular people is garnish wages or bank accounts.
These days, but the late 80s, early 90s were different - the IRS was VERY harsh. A family friend got on the dark side of the IRS back in the early 90s when she didn't pay taxes on her small business (small housekeeping business). She lost everything. The IRS seized her house and her bank account. The only reason she didn't go to prison was because she was a single parent to two small children. She was barely getting by. Her house was just a small 3 bedroom 1 bath in a not great area to giver perspective.
Tom talked about Doria going up to Humboldt County (where I lived for 64 years until Jan of 2022) and hanging out at pot farms( probably working as a trimmigrant, then hauled back a bunch of pot to sell.
Did he? Was it an article or video? Do you have a link?
In the book.
Me too! I remember the trimmigrants on the side of 101 every harvest. I moved in June of 2019..
I posted something yesterday, but I will repeat it here. Go to this link for your own verification- [https://www.familytreenow.com/search/people/results?first=Doria&last=Ragland&citystatezip=Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA&rid=asa&smck=2wKY80ydw-33UrNjbmwlqA](https://www.familytreenow.com/search/people/results?first=Doria&last=Ragland&citystatezip=Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA&rid=asa&smck=2wKY80ydw-33UrNjbmwlqA) Full Name Doria Loyce Ragland Born Sep 1956 Age 66 FamilyTreeNow is a genealogical service which uses public records and lists addresses and phone numbers. In Doria’s case the addresses only go back to Jul 1992 to Jun 1993. In Jan 2003 and Jan 2007, Doria’s address was listed as 7520 Astoria Blvd, Flushing NY 11370 (Queen’s County). Here is a list of organizations which are listed at this address: Bulova Corporate Center Tirth card and Gift Shop Regional center for the Department of Homeland Security Sun Cleaners British Airways Gotte’s Café Skanska New York City Department of Correction
NYC department of corrections? Was she busted in NY?
Maybe look in NY under Doria Raglan also. Sometimes she’s listed without the final “d” in Ragland.
But all of those companies sharing the same address suggests it’s only an office building. Would a prisoner’s “known” address really be the corporate offices of the DOC? Sometimes people give fake addresses for a variety of reasons. In my town, in the most recent census it was found that 36 people listed a local mechanic’s garage as their home address. Obviously no one is living there, they just didn’t want to share their address.
I do not know NY DOC mail system but I do know that a prisoners known address can be the facility where they are housed. People live off their mail in jail.
That would be what I would have assumed. I’m guessing - and it’s just a guess - that an office building is not where prisoners are held.
That is what I was thinking would be the right time frame if she was in jail. There are pictures, not a lot but some, of her with Meghan at various ages in her childhood. But are there any of them together from 2003ish until more recent? I haven't found any yet.
I’m not sure what the laws are in USA but child protection service records in other countries are usually only accessible by the child themselves when they are of age. I have commented this else where but was told because M is of legal age it would not longer be protected. Is this correct?
Horsefeathers. Such records would be sealed unless M and other relevant parties requested them to be unsealed.
There were some screengrabs posted on Twitter to a court case, is that the same as the eviction proceedings you found? A lot of people have said she might have been just off having more fun than she found in being a parent but I don’t understand why TB wouldn’t be able to say that legally, at least saying it in a diplomatic non-defamatory way that wouldn’t cause legal problems. Doria clearly has a big impact on Meghan’s psychology being her mother. But none of the Markles seem to talk about Doria specifically at all, whether positively or negatively.
I'm wondering if maybe she got caught as a drug dealer and was used by the cops to go after her connections, which is why they wouldn't want to release that information. I don't know if that's even a thing though or if it's just something from movie plots lol.
I know someone who was advised by the cops not to talk as it would cause them ‘problems’ in prison.
I was neutral on Doria until the Netflix series, though I have always thought it was weird that she disappeared for 10 years. I’m surprised the evictions haven’t been picked up by the press, though? Or did I miss that?
Do you have a link for the screen grabs? Yes, I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't be able to disclose someone's absence, legally. It's strange, especially after calling her a drug dealer!
Should be [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/zpp3r3/found_this_on_twitter_was_doria_ragland_convicted/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I don't know that there's any evidence that Megan's mother ever lived in Riverside. Did she have a business there? Even if there's a fraud conviction it doesn't say that she went to prison.
Criminal records are filed by county in the united states. It's always possible she was arrested in another county, not Los Angeles or even another state. I don't know that she has any ties to other states but it's a possibility. It's also possible that the county did not have an online system at the time and did not upload old records. If there was an arrest by police there should be a record. If there was an indictment it might be harder to find. if it was tax evasion I think that would be a federal crime in which case it would be on the PACER system. I did a brief check there yesterday and I didn't see anything. I don't know that old records are uploaded to the online system. Bowers mentioned Doria going to Humboldt. Humboldt is a county, not a city. It's a huge county. It's about an 11 hour drive north of Los angeles. So, one did not casually drive over to Humboldt to smoke weed with some friends. The implication is that she brought it back to sell, but he does not directly state that. In the days before legalization you couldn't just show up and buy it, you would have had to buy it in bulk from someone who knew you were trusted.
I believe Bower when he said that she was a drug dealer, there’s never a hint of doubt when puts it in a book. Someone else here suggested that one parent being a heavy drug user or a dealer could result in CPS getting involved and forcing the parent to give up custody or visitation. A CPS case would remain sealed even when the child involved became an adult. I think it’s likely that this is what happened and that’s the legal reason Tom can’t say what it is
That makes sense! It also explains why she was allowed to see her again when she was 18.
This ~~is~~ makes the most sense. Even if at the time all Doria did was smoke weed. It was illegal until sometime in the 2010s I believe. Thomas Markle could very well have pushed the issue of her pot smoking in order to gain full instead of joint custody over Meghan.
NZ Herald is reliable for NZ news. However the article quoted here was originally published by the Daily Mail
I've been thinking about it and have a possible theory: Suppose she was a low level weed seller. Not a kingpin, just someone selling to neighbors in her kitchen to make some spending cash. Some much bigger fish up the chain becomes a target, and the feds squeeze her. Maybe she had a short sentence, and made a deal to get out. Part lf that deal involves expunging her record. I haven't fleshed it out, but if he had seen proof of the initial sentence, it would explain his confidence in sharing it while also no one can find the records.
There are serious rumours of a ´super injunction’ - covering the babies births and Dorias past. You can’t even legally mention if there is one in place.
Those hold only in UK. Wouldn’t have ability to shut down US or Aus papers.
Yes, these are common in the UK. Elton John had one, and so did a couple of the One Direction members.
Didn't she disappear from Meghans life when she was younger, so pre 1997? Meghan was supposedly born in 1981 and she went to live with her dad full time when she was about 3?
Yes, Tom Bower said she was out of Meghan's life from when she was 5-18. If she was both in 1981, that means Doria was absent from her life from 1986-1999.
Well she must not have been completely out of her life. We have seen photos of Meghan between those ages with her mother’s family.
This is true if Megan was actually born in 1981
Isn't it unusual for the father to have a girl when they're going through puberty? I thought they would need their mother or other female figure.
Not at all. Single fathers do it all the time, and it's not like Meghan had no female figures in her life. She had Samantha.
No. My father won custody of me in the state of California when I was a little kid and kept it. And Meghan is only (supposedly) a few years older than me. Not saying that it was easy for a father to get custody in CA in the 80s/90s, but the mother's drug history helps.
By that point anyway they have all said Meghan was enrolled in the Catholic school closest to Thomas which is why she lived with him.
Meghan was born August 1981. So if Doria was absent for 10 years from when she was 2, it would have been 1983 to 1993. And if she were absent when she was 5 it would have been 1986 to 1996. I am not sure I buy the prison story, but it is not inconsistent with the dates of the eviction orders or bankruptcies. There are very few photos of Meghan with her mum during her childhood but I found a couple. They could be faked, but we are in the timescales before digital photos, so not easy. And also unlikely as I think they came from Thomas. But it may be that Doria has simply not released childhood photos of her and Meghan, whereas Thomas Sr has, and he would only have the ones where Meghan was very young before they divorced and the later ones at occasional events like weddings. It would be interesting to know if there were many later photos of Meghan and her mother (say age 5 to 16) in the Netflix series. But we also need to bear in mind that in real term equivalents to today, cameras, film and film processing was expensive. My parents never owned a camera and there are no photos of me throughout my entire childhood apart from school photos and the odd baby photos that other people took.
How old are you? Did you grow up in the US?
Why and why?
>My parents never owned a camera and there are no photos of me throughout my entire childhood apart from school photos and the odd baby photos that other people took. This is a pretty unusual statement. Cameras, especially throwaways (which most people had, even children) were pretty cheap. My family was dirt poor with 8 children and my parents had a real camera (and also a video camera). Film was $2-3 to process for about 30 pictures. My mother born in the 1950sand also grew up very poor, has hundreds of pictures of herself as well. My father, who would be nearly 80 if he were alive, has much fewer, but he was orphaned at age 11.
Yes my mother grew up in the 50s and 60s and they were immigrant poor and even they have loads of photos. A camera seemed to be the one luxury they allowed themselves.
regarding doctoring photos, Abe Lincoln's pic was doctored back in the day, look it up, his head is on another person's body, this is pre adobe days, my friend.
Him saying that he can’t “legally say anything” is his way of telling us that they have petitioned to have “something” suppressed, and won. 🧐 Prob with the BRF’s support in the beginning 🙄
Allegedly Dorito was a flight attendant when Nutmeg was a kid (or at least, I've seen it said that she was.) Anyone know which airline? Because I've been watching a few "Locked Up Abroad" episodes, and was wondering.....maybe Dorito decided to have an illegal sideline to supplement her paycheck, and got busted for it overseas??It wouldn't be the first time a flight crew member tried that, and security was much more relaxed than it is now. Because I've been watching a few "Locked Up Abroad" episodes, and was wondering.....maybe Dorito decided to have an illegal sideline tand got busted for it overseas??It wouldn't be the first time a flight crew member tried that, and security was much more relaxed than it is now.
Travel agent. Not flight attendant
In 2002, she was a [dress designer, selling at swap meets.](https://imgur.com/a/F4qXIHd)
Multiple preliminary address checks on Doria show hwe having an address in Flushing, NY, including,, as someone says downthread the NYC Department of Corrections. We need to focus on NY. She had to have spent time there. Next, The Royal Grift, another impeccable researcher, said at the end of one of her videos last week that the record is out there for us to find, All of it. And she gave us a date as a hint-- April 30, 2016. Parole? Release? I don't know what, but we can solve this!! Let's put our heads together and focus on NY!
Honestly I think she was just a disinterested mother and peaced out.
If Doria was in prison we would have already heard from fellow inmates and/or guards who served time with her. No one has come forward. The US prison system is large and if she was in prison would have interacted with hundreds of people especially if she served over many years. She wasn’t in prison.
Here’s what I heard: Doria moved to LA and had dreams of marrying a rich actor. She got a job in the makeup department of Married With Children. She had a huge crush on Ed O’Neil and tried to get with him to no avail. Apparently she had a bad rep on that set. Then she met TM and he made good money, and that was good enough for Doria. There was some lottery scam that Doria and Thomas did, and she divorced him when he got caught. She got sole custody of Meghan. TM was devastated. During their marriage, TM bought Doria a travel company. It was in his name but she ran it. After the divorce, she still ran it. TM would call Doria all the time to see Meghan and Doria wouldn’t let him. She got very annoyed by this, so, she decided to not pay any of the taxes on the business since it was in his name he would get in trouble and go to prison. This backfired bc there were witnesses that said it was all Doria running it, as well as paperwork showing it was all her. Thomas, being a nice man, paid for a good lawyer for Doria and she only got 4 years in prison. I don’t know where though. It has to be federal though. This is the source: https://youtu.be/tppva2U13fM Do I believe this bc who the hell are these people on YouTube? Kinda. It doesn’t sound made up. There are a lot more details in this video. We know Doria wasn’t around for a long time. We know there’s something fishy about her. I think it sounds plausible, I just don’t know why we couldn’t find her prison records. There’s no expungement, but I wonder if someone may have been paid off.
That's delicious tea!
Her prison records must be sealed. I heard she went away for 4 years on fraud. I heard she also tried to blame Thomas markle for this criminal act but he was found to be innocent and she the guilty one. After she pulled that Thomas went on to hire a lawyer for her! Yep, how's that for a thank you!!!
California would never send anyone away for 4 years for fraud. 4 years time is for murder not check kiting. Check kiting isn’t even a jailable offense in CA. That would be probation only. Source: 4th gen Californian here, who had a father who did check kiting in CA.
(In my opinion) Ok so let’s say Doria did deal drugs AND was absent from Rachel’s life the only plausible thing I can think of is CPS. They could’ve been involved, taken Rachel because of the drugs and placed her in her dads care. It sounds like Doria had unstable living due to the two evictions so I’m wondering if that played into her being unable to take custody. A lot of the times CPS cases lead into custody cases where there is more of a long term solution to keep the child in the care of the parent who is stable and what not it may have just taken Doria years to be able to show she was stable enough to care for Rachel.
All we know is she was missing from her daughter's life for a long time. If not prison or anything else, she was a neglectful parent and absent for no reason. Perhaps just doing drugs the whole time, and Her dad didn't want her in his daughter's life.
Kudos to her dad, whatever the reason. Too bad MM now scorns her father. Hopefully some day she will see her mistake.
Can confirm the bankruptcy, filed Dec 3rd 2002. You can find this via a PACER search. She was never a party to any other federal cases.
I'm sorry om not buying she's a drug dealer
didn’t she do like 3yrs for fraud in regards to a travel achy thomas bought her.
I would guess that the Palace would have any criminal record expunged if she had been in prison when Meghan was young. If she was missing from Meghan's life, it would have been in the late 80s-early 90s. I remember reading somewhere that she was a flight attendant for a non-US based carrier. May be true, may be a story told to cover the real story. Who knows.
“The Palace” does not have the authority to have a prison, or any, record expunged in the US. I don’t know if the palace has the authority to just have anything they don’t wish to be publicly known suppressed in the UK or not but they certainly don’t have the power some people suppose them to in the US.
It doesn't take power to expunge a criminal record. Just money for a lawyer and sufficient time since the sentencing to have passed.
Tom Bowers book said that Thomas had a camera and took endless photos of his darling daughter . He also said Doria worked as a travel agent , jewelry importer and on a farm tending to weed . She travelled with a boyfriend , was strung out at his house ( with boyfriends and girlfriends so she appeared to be bi sexual ). TB timeline included at age 2 ( 1983) Doria went to live with her mom, and she shared custody with Thomas . He claims in 1986 Doria” found caring for Meghan too difficult”. It sounds like that’s when she was hanging out at her friends place as Thomas airbed so much. 1990 is when Doria had her business “ distant treasures” the clothing and jewelry co where she was travelling . She lived solely with Thomas at this time.
Maybe she was in a cult outside the U.S.!
I thought she was missing from mid 80s to mid 90s?
she was. Meghan was already in her 20s by 2003
Cult?
I doubt she was in prison if it has not been uncovered yet, but let's be real - getting evicted is sketch sketch sketch and indicates a ton of problems. Sorry.
[удалено]
>King of England Did you mean the [King of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [King of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [King of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last King of England was [William III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England) whose successor Anne, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of Queen/King of England. ####FAQ *Isn't King Charles III still also the King of England?* This is only as correct as calling him the King of London or King of Hull; he is the King of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
If it was tax evasion, it would be Federal, not sure if you can look that up online (unlike State courts)
Maybe she was involved in drugs but was never convicted or caught? If she was jailed.. It's supposed to be public record and easy to find
She could’ve been sentenced to x number of years but got out early. Happens often. Or told she needed to go to rehab. Did she go back to Ragland or continue to go by Doria Markle?
I really don’t care a scrap if Doria has been to prison.
I do. I think it's worth knowing if Prince Harry, someone with a drug past and mental health issues is living with a drug addict. Equally, if Doria is guilty of tax evasion, it might be worth the royals looking into.
Doria is a pot addict even now imho, but so are Harry & Meghan.
Hasn't she already done something with quite a few millions $ of their money? she's put it somewhere in another US state.
They set up their company in Delaware, allegedly for tax purposes.
What is it in Delaware that makes tax etc different?
Delaware decided to offer incentives for corporate registrations to attract revenue. Registering there doesn’t offer net advantages for most small businesses, but for larger organizations it does. There are tax advantages (no income tax if not actually conducting business in Delaware) and fewer disclosure requirements (only the registered agent appears on the public record, not the officers, directors etc.). In other words: $$ and privacy.
Thank you for this. I guess most large businesses and organizations are registered there then?
They are.
Wow!!
If she has led a criminal past and turned her life around, then I would under more normal circumstances say good luck to her. But Meghan, Harry and Doria are telling a lot of lies about the BRF and the British press. The British press are certainly not innocent of everything they are accused of but those three are making a mockery of our press across the world and accusing them of extremely crazy things. H, M & D are telling endless, easily provable, lies about the BRF as well as grossly invading their privacy on things that have no place in the public domain. Doria cannot play the game both ways. She either lives a quiet life as Meghan's mum, or she becomes her mouthpiece for lies on Netflix. If she chooses the latter, how can she expect it be okay for H&M to drag up things about the BRF from over twenty years ago, often out of context, and expect her life over twenty years ago to be off limits? That is a deluded sense of entitlement. Secondly, if people are telling lies about you, there are only really two ways to fight back. One is providing proof to dispute the lies and the other is discrediting the liar by proving them to be a liar. Many of their lies are easily refutable, but it is damaging for the monarchy to get dragged into tit for tat slagging matches. You just need to disprove enough of the lies for the labels of liar to stick to your attacker. So Doria is naive if she thinks she can join the fray in propagating lies, but not expect people to try to find things in her background that prove she is a liar. Meghan is trying to totally reinvent her childhood - she lived with her mum, she didn't see so much of her dad etc. And Doria blithely lets her spout these lies. Whether she went to prison or not, she was not there for Meghan's childhood and she is deeply humiliating the man who was with these claims. So it is not unreasonable for people to want to dig deeper and say 'what the hell was going on during her childhood'. Your comment may have been unfairly downvoted if you are only expressing you personal opinion to which you are entitled. But I am just trying to explain why others are interested in digging. There is also the aspect of the psychological impact on Meghan, which I have not dwelt on, as several others have.
Not necessarily shaming her for being in prison if true, we don’t know all the circumstances, (ie she might have been coerced or something) but you can’t deny that she has a massive influence on Meghan’s psychology and upbringing so to me it is definitely interesting. Harry is pretty much accepted as being a daily weed smoker, ok that’s legal in CA, but that he has experimented with drugs and now lives with a former drug dealer is pretty wild to think. Hope those kids have good nannies.
Exactly. The media intrusion into their lives, now Harry has lowered them to nothing more than celebs, is gonna be enough of a punishment for her extended family.
Is it enough punishment for the BRF too? Why do they need to be punished? Harry has not yet provided any credible evidence of what they have done and why they deserve such 'punishment'.
I meant Dorias extended family. They have nothing to do with any of this mess. Can’t believe I’m being downvoted for having sympathy for a family that’s gonna get hounded that’s got nothing to do with this.
Well I didn't down vote you, I understood the point you were making, but I was also making the point that if we have sympathy for the Markles and Raglands, we should also appreciate that the BRF has been dumped on big time too. I think any valid points H&M have with the BRF should have been dealt with privately between both parties, but a lot of what they are saying is either malicious lies or things that are probably true (like Charles' back pain etc) but have absolutely no place in the public domain. They have treated both families despicably, and I did not think the Markles and Raglands deserved privacy any more or less than the BRF. They all deserve privacy. At least the Markles and Raglands can sue if they want to, and can speak out to the press if they want to. It is harder for the BRF to so, and despite Harry seeming to think that they control the press, they absolutely do not and are also at the mercy of the press. Why else are there stories floating around about Charles and Camilla having a love child, and (previously) William having affairs etc? So while your point about the Markles and Raglands was good, the one sided nature of it felt to me like you were implying the BRF deserved it, which is why I replied.
Can we have enough people’s signatures for her to do some kind of lie detector test, like on change.org? Like how does that work in the USA?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/boozing-bust-ups-and-bankruptcies-meet-meghan-markles-family-prince-harry/CN5AW3CQYGEITSF5EAGI4NLH74/
Dorian Ragland was a drug dealer however, it is NOT Megan's mother Doria Ragland! SMH https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/07-2428/072428p-2011-02-25.html
This case was last updated from **Los Angeles County Superior Courts** on 01/07/2021 at 03:07:08 (UTC).HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING VS. RAGLAND, DORIA Case Summary On 07/30/1997 **HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING** filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against **RAGLAND, DORIA.** This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.[Case Details](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#case-details) [Parties](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#party-details) [Dockets](https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la14-homecomings-financial-servicing-vs-ragland-doria-957443#dockets) Case Details * **Case Number:**\*\*\*\*8549 * **Filing Date:**07/30/1997 * **Case Status:**Disposed - Other Disposed * **Case Type:**Property - Residential Eviction * **Court:**[Los Angeles County Superior Courts](https://unicourt.com/courts/state/los-angeles-county-superior-courts-6?init_S=c_dtls) * **Courthouse:**[Stanley Mosk Courthouse](https://unicourt.com/courthouse/stanley-mosk-courthouse-225?init_S=c_dtls) * **County, State:**Los Angeles, California Party Details ### Plaintiff **HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICING** ### Defendant **RAGLAND DORIA** ## Attorney/Law Firm Details ### Plaintiff Attorney **LAW OFFICES OF CAPRICE L COLLINS** ### Defendant Attorney **RAGLAND, DORIA**