Day two of the Danny Masterson prelim: Jane Doe 1’s cross-examination continues

News organizations normally have a policy of not naming sexual assault victims in their stories. For some reason, however, some of the media outlets covering yesterday’s preliminary hearing in the Danny Masterson rape case chose to ignore this policy, and they used the abbreviated version of Jane Doe 1’s actual name which the judge and attorneys called her by in court.

We actually know these victims. We’ve been covering this story for four years. And we know how terrified two of them were that their real names would be revealed during this prosecution. We just wanted to point out how disgusted we are at other news organizations that chose to re-victimize an alleged rape victim in this way yesterday.

OK, off the soap box. We’ll be back in session today at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on the ninth floor for day two of the prelim. When the hearing starts at 9 am Masterson’s criminal defense attorney Tom Mesereau will continue his cross-examination of Jane Doe 1, which took up more than half the day on Tuesday.

Mesereau’s plodding cross, with repetitious questions asked over and over, is probably going to extend this hearing beyond the four days originally estimated by Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller. Yesterday, Judge Charlaine Olmedo admonished Mesereau about going too far into the weeds, and reminded him that this was a preliminary hearing, not a full blown trial. But she may need to rein him in further if he keeps up the glacial pace.

Mesereau’s questions started out mild, but then got pretty vile by the end of the day. His main strategy appears to be to raise questions about Jane Doe 1’s accounts in Scientology documents in 2003 and LAPD documents in 2004 in contrast to the story she is telling today. But even the judge seemed to realize that things she said in an “O/W Write-up” for Scientology were designed to make her take fault for things. And Jane Doe 1’s description of how the LAPD had produced the 2004 police report — it was taken by a desk sergeant who didn’t even file it as a rape but called it an “injury report” — suggested that the problem with the narrative’s continuity had more to do with Scientology and the LAPD than with Jane Doe 1’s memory.

Jane Doe 1 was poised and held up well under the pressure. We’re looking forward to the completion of her cross-examination and re-direct.

At the end of yesterday’s report we mentioned that Danny Masterson had leaned in towards your proprietor and Graham Berry and said, smartly, “See you all tomorrow!”

But if there was any doubt of Masterson’s cockiness, it was revealed in the mindblowing thing he did at his Instagram account, which was noted by journalist Yashar Ali…

 
We’ll let you know if he’s up to more antics today.

 
Morning session

This morning Danny Masterson is in a grey suit with a dark striped tie, and he’s wearing a tan-colored mask. In his family row, it’s not the same four people as yesterday. We believe that Jordan Masterson is one of the four, but we’re not sure about the others.

In the hallway before the hearing, Mesereau was talking with family members rather loudly, and even from where we were standing in line to go in, we could hear him exclaim about what a “liar” Jane Doe 1 is. He referred in particular to the “civil settlement,” which is pretty outrageous, if you understand what pressure she was under to sign the NDA and accept Masterson’s money or be declared suppressive by the church. Also, we heard Mesereau say that some people are “so jealous of success.” So he has the motive nailed down, apparently.

Setting next to us today is attorney Vicki Podberesky, who we believe is representing several Scientologists who may end up as witnesses.

Mesereau began to continue his cross-examination, starting by asking about “Lilly,” the woman Jane Doe 1 said she had heard about which motivated her to go to the LAPD in 2004. Mesereau asked where Lilly lived or other details, which Jane Doe 1 said she didn’t know.

Then Judge Olmedo jumped in and said this material was irrelevant.

But judge, Lilly doesn’t exist. She made that up, Mesereau said but Olmedo really hammered him. We were wondering if she’d speak up today after how long Mesereau had gone on yesterday in cross. Here was our answer.

She indicated that the facts about Lilly didn’t matter for this hearing. (And clearly, whether Lilly was only a rumor or not, what matters is that hearing about another victim gave Jane Doe 1 the courage to defy her church and go to the LAPD.)

Mesereau then tried to go into the “O/W Write-up” again and was asking about whether Jane Doe 1 had seen copies and where. And then Judge Olmedo pounced again. “Move on,” she said forcefully.

Mesereau then brought up KRs, and asked her about how many she had prepared.

“Irrelevant” Judge Olmedo said and poked him again. She then gave him a lengthy explanation about how she had allowed in references to Scientology to explain state of mind in this probable cause hearing, but she wasn’t going to allow this kind of detail about it.

“Scientology is not a defendant in this case,” she said. (No it isn’t, but it’s been taking a serious beating, to be sure.)

So now, after these various admonitions, Mesereau got back on track, asking specifically about the rape allegations for the first time. But for much of it, he was simply going over what she’d already testified to.

He grabbed your hand. Was it your hand or your wrist? Both. He grabbed you by the throat? Yes. You felt he hated you? Yes. How long did he have his hand on your throat? I don’t know, she said, and she was crying again.

When he had both of your hands, was he having sex with you?

Jane Doe answered this while being very uncomfortable. “Having sex – I don’t like to characterize it that way.”

Smart.

OK, I’m out of time and need to go back in the courtroom. Danny just gave Podberesky a big hug in the hallway.

 
Lunch break

Back to where we were earlier in the morning. Mesereau is still cross-examining Jane Doe 1 and he’s been admonished by the judge to hurry up.

He’s going through her testimony about the rape itself, and asks her about what happened when she woke up. But that leads to confusion because she came to numerous times during the night.

Now he’s asking her about crawling to the closet, and she describes again sort of blindly crawling in there, pulling some clothes to her, and curling up into a fetal position, then passing out again.

At one point she heard Danny yelling her name, but she just pulled the clothes in tighter and tried not to breathe.

It’s a frightening image, and we’re not sure why Mesereau is getting her to tell us even more detail about her harrowing experience.

Is this the description the same that you told police? Yes. Ever changed your story? No. It’s remained consistent? Yes. Every statement you made to the police was true? Yes.

Then: Did you ever withhold information from the police. Yes? How many times? Once.

And that’s left hanging for the moment. But we will soon come back to it.

Now back to early in the evening, by the jacuzzi. She said she told Danny “no, no, no, don’t throw me in. But that doesn’t work with him.” He had thrown her in the jacuzzi before. Were you upset when he did that? Yes. And you told him not to? Yes. Then why did you go back to his house that night? To get the keys. You didn’t have to go to the house to get the keys, did you. Objection, argumentative. Sustained.

When you left the house, you were wearing clothes. Whose clothes were they? I don’t know. Male or female clothes? I don’t know. Danny’s shirt? I don’t know. “I don’t have a distinct memory about a lot of that.”

What she did remember was seeing Luke Watson and asking him, “Oh my God, what happened?” She asked him for help. That’s when he said, “Nope. Nope. Don’t say a word. You’re going straight to the president’s office.”

He then asked about the bruises that she said had developed after the incident, and that she noticed when she got to Florida. Mesereau asked if she had gone to a doctor there (no) and whether she had ever had photos taken of the bruises. She answered that photos had not been taken to document the bruises, but that a lot of family photos were taken on the vacation, and that her bruising shows up in some of them.

Mesereau asked if she knew that in June 2004 her father told the police he hadn’t seen bruising, Mueller objected and the judge sustained. So Mesereau asked, did you show your father the bruises? No, she said.

Mesereau then began asking about a series of other people who are mentioned for the first time.

Max Gerson: He was Danny’s roommate. Was he around that night? I don’t know. Did you talk to him before leaving? No.
Damian Perkins: Was he at the house? I don’t know, I only saw Luke.
Chris [and we missed the last name. Sounded like “body”]: A musician and someone I had intimate relations with. Any bruising after relations with him? Objection

Mesereau: Tony Ortega? Jane Doe 1: I don’t know him. I’ve never met him. Mesereau, when judge asks relevance: “She’s been leaking information to Mr. Ortega about this investigation.”

“Let’s move on,” the judge says.

Kevin Becker, LAPD: I’ve spoken with him on the phone. Have you attempted to get info about the LAPD investigation through Becker? No.

I asked him to deliver a letter.

Leah Remini: Did you participate in a theatrical production? Yes. April 2017. How did you prepare for that interview? Were you given a script? No. A treatment? No. Any document about what to say? No. You just showed up and spoke? Yes. Who with? Leah Remini and Mike Rinder. Who’s Mike Rinder? He’s on the show and he is also a former Scientologist. Were you paid? No. Did you ask for money? No.

Will the interview air? Objection, speculation. Sustained.

Did Leah Remini ever accompany you to a meeting with the LAPD.

At this point Judge Olmedo gives Mesereau another admonition, telling him that he’s obviously trying to get discovery material and that is not proper for a preliminary hearing.

We take the morning break.

When we’re back, Mesereau indicates he’s finally about to wrap up the cross of Jane Doe 1. He continues to ask about more people.

Ben Schulman: He was a contractor for my parents, and a very close friend to Danny Masterson. Did you talk to him that night? No. The next day? No.

The other women in this case, specifically Jane Doe 3, did you know her? Socially, peripherally. Spoke with her in October 2016.

When was the last time you talked to her? Five minutes ago. About the case? No. Have you talked regularly with her? Yes. Have you been discussing what Danny Masterson allegedly did you with her in the last year? Yes. Has she talked about what happened to her? Yes. Did the LAPD ask you not to talk about the case? Initially. Despite what the LAPD asked you not to do, you did anyway? No. We talked only after the LAPD asked us to.

No further questions.

Now Mueller gets a chance on re-direct with Jane Doe 1.

Mueller brings up the “O/W Write-up” that Mesereau was so focused on. Did you prepare it? No. Did you tell Det. Vargas what was incorrect in it? Yes. And omitted? Yes.

The issue of a sedative in the April 2003 incident. You didn’t see Danny Masterson make that drink? No she didn’t.

The alcohol you consumed before the 2002 and 2003 incidents, describe the different reactions. In 2002 I didn’t have the occlusion of memory that I had in 2003. I was drunk in the first incident, I was something other in 2003. Did you ever have a reaction to alcohol like that? No

In the 2002 incident, did you go to the house talking about having sex? No. Why did you go to his house that time? Because Brie didn’t come, and Jane Doe 1 was asked to crash at Danny’s House, using the guest house. That’s what Danny had told her.

And what was it like that night. I was loud and disorderly. I was laughing. This is so stupid, I kept saying. Why are we doing this? This is stupid. I was drunk.

In 2004 you considered that incident consensual, but today you don’t. What changed? “I’m no longer told how I should view things that happened to me by the Church of Scientology. And I’ve had a couple of years of therapy.”

Then there’s a moment of levity in the courtroom when Mueller flubs and refers to “Danny Mesereau.”

Mueller than asks Jane Doe 1 about the NDA she signed in 2004. She was 27 or 28 at the time, she explained. This was after the DA declined charges. Was there any involvement of the Church of Scientology in that signing? Yes. How so.

The attorney from the church, Kendrick Moxon, arrived at my parents’ house in July or August 2004, and he came with a handwritten letter from Danny Masterson. Go inside and read it, Moxon told her, then he went to speak with her father. Jane Doe 1 says that Moxon actually described the deal he was proposing to her father as a way to keep your daughter, unlike what had happened to him. (Moxon’s daughter Stacey Moxon committed suicide by throwing herself on an electrical transformer at Scientology’s secretive Gold Base.) Moxon explained that there was a declare order for Jane Doe 1 already typed up and on Julian Swartz’s desk, and if she signed the NDA regarding her allegations about Masterson, they would give her the declare in return for her signature. “We’re going to see how to work out not to lose your daughter,” she says Moxon told her father. And Jane Doe 1 says she was told this was happening because her parents were such good donors to the church, and this was a favor to them.

The judge stops Jane Doe 1 and goes through this to make sure she understands — and it’s clear that she does. Amazing moment.

Jane Doe 1 believes that even though she signed the NDA, she was declared anyway because she had gone to the police.

Mueller now turns to the statement by Jane Doe 1 during cross-examination that she had withheld something from police in 2004. What was that? She explains that she intentionally withheld Scientology’s involvement in the situation because she didn’t want to implicate the church. At that time, in 2004, she was still a Scientologist. “I wanted to stay in touch with my parents.”

She says that she held back names like David Miscavige and the Celebrity Centre in order to keep them out of the case. She thought the church might then go easier on her.

Leah Remini: Why did you agree to be interviewed by her? Because like in 2004, in 2017 it seemed like they were being closed out. The LAPD seemed to be failing the case. “We thought it was our only chance to be safe.” Safe from what? “Retaliation by the Church of Scientology and Danny Masterson.”

Mueller had been brief and very effective. Now it was time for a short re-cross by Mesereau.

You intentionally withheld information from the police. I was a Scientologist still. I had a different code. Law Enforcement is frowned upon and you protect the church.

Meserau asks her about signing an NDA, but she explains that she signed many NDA when she was only a teenager. “As a minor in the Sea Organization you sign NDAs so you won’t reveal their secrets.”

Mesereau asks a final question about the 2004 NDA and he’s finished. Time for a new witness.

Jane Doe 3 was then brought into the courtroom. And in this case, different than the other two alleged victims, we are going to refer to the name that was used in court, Christina B. And that’s because this woman has been public about her name from almost the moment the investigation went public here at the Underground Bunker in 2017.

When media outlets called Masterson for a response, his publicist, Jenni Weinman, named Christina B. and she then felt that she had no choice but to go public, and she has ever since.

Mueller asked Christina B. to describe her relationship with Masterson. He and I dated and lived together for six years. They had met at a party in September 1996, when she was 18, and they were living together only two weeks later. Christina B was a working model at the time.

How was the relationship at first? I thought he was wonderful. Charming. I loved him. He was great for a while.

What changed? A year into our relationship he just became very aggressive sexually. What does that mean? I’d be sleeping, I’d wake up and he’d be having sex with me. I’d push him off.

Was he physically abusive? It was a lot of mental control. I learned quickly that he was always right. He would never apologize. If I talked back it would be two days of him ignoring me and I’d have to end up apologizing to him.

Did he hit you? Yes.

Now we’re going to focus on two incidents, in November and December 2001, which took place at Danny’s then house, 6227 Holly Mont.

The first incident, November 2001: I was sleeping. I woke up and he was having sex with me. I decided I did not want him to do that so I pushed back. No, I don’t want to have sex with you. He got angry and put all of his weight on my body. So I did something that I knew would make him angry — I pulled his hair. He has rules. No touching the hair, no touching the face.

When she grabbed his hair, she says he hit her face with a loose fist.

I got angry, screaming at him to get off me. He was still inside me. He finally got off me and spit on me. He did that often. He called me white trash.

Mueller now goes through the requisite details. They were both naked. She was lying on her back. It was his penis that was inside her vagina. More details about holding her down and pulling at his hair.

After spitting on her and calling her white trash, he went downstairs and slept in a guest bedroom, she says. “I remember this incident because it was the first time that he hit me.”

(The judge clarifies with Mueller that this is, in fact, the charging incident that makes up count three of the case.)

The December incident.

Mesereau objects saying that if it’s not the charging incident, the December incident should not be allowed in. But the Judge really kind of lets him have it: If you want to keep out the December 2001 incident for Christina B, then you’ll have to leave out the September 2002 incident of Jane Doe 1. Go on, Mueller.

So, the December incident. They had dinner and she had one or two glasses of wine.

The last thing she remembered was standing up to go home. She then woke up the next morning in bed. No clothes on. Danny wasn’t there. She woke up and was really confused. The first the noticed was that her bod hurt. The back of her head hurt. Her joints ached. Did her vaginal area hurt? No. Her anal area? Yes. I was injured there. There was a little blood, and she was torn.

“I was in a lot of pain. It hurt to sit down and to go to the bathroom.”

She went downstairs and found Danny in his office. What happened last night? I don’t have any memory of it. Did I fall? She indicated that her anus was injured.

He laughed at me. He said he had sex with me there. I asked him if I was unconscious. He said yes. The whole time? Yes.

“I’m going to report you to the church. He said that was fine.”

The next day she went to the ethics office and talked to her Master-at-Arms, Miranda Skoggins.

I was looking to help him. I wanted him to understand that this was not right. I knew it deep down that it was not right, and I wanted him to get some help.

Did you think the church would help him? I did, I did.

She wanted to write a Knowledge Report or a Things that Should Not Be report. He raped me, she told Miranda. “She said you can’t rape someone you’re in a relationship with. She said not to say the word ‘rape’ again.”

You believed her? Yes. I told her I didn’t have the freedom to say no to him.

Miranda told her not to tell anyone about it. And so did Chris Skoggins, Miranda’s husband who was chaplain at the Celebrity Centre. Miranda showed her the High Crimes policies in Scientology, one of which was reporting a fellow Scientologist to law enforcement. She understood that she would be declared if she did.

Chris Skoggins explained to her that Masterson was doing these things to because she was out-exchange with him.

Judge Olmedo: I’m sorry, what?

Christina B explained the concept of out-exchange to the judge. Danny was putting a roof over her head, and he could have sex with her when he wanted it.

What was the church’s plan for handling this situation? I was to do an ethics program because I did something to deserve what he did to me. Miranda had told her: “You did something to pull it in.”

Did you have a thought about going to law enforcement? No. Why not? One, I was so embarrassed and ashamed. And two, I just wanted to help him and I wanted the church to help him. Also, I knew that if I went to law enforcement the church would ultimately destroy me. The thought of being declared SP “put me in terror.”

In my relationship with him I had disconnected from family, and friends who were not in Scientology. I wasn’t working. (She had explained that she did not grow up in Scientology but had joined it when she started dating Danny. “He made it sound so amazing.”)

When she finally came to law enforcement at the end of 2016, was she still a Scientologist? I still believed it. I trusted it.

You were initially told it wasn’t rape (by Miranda). What changed your mind? I never told anyone any of it. And then I told my husband. He said, he raped you. No, no. It’s not rape. He raped you!

I kept defending Danny.

And that’s where we broke for lunch. More testimony from Christina B. soon.

 
Afternoon break

After lunch, Deputy DA Mueller continued his direct examination of Christina B.

You talked to Danny Masterson about the November and December 2001 incidents? I defended him. Why? It was easier to do that.

At some point you started to think about those incidents in a different way. I called RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network). I asked them if you’re in a relationship and you’re unconscious and they have sex with you. Is that rape? She then defined rape for me.

What did you do? I cried.

Had you told anyone about it besides your husband? No sir. When were you married? 2009. I told him one to two years after we were married.

Did Danny make any threats about what happened? Not directly. In fact he said I could tell the church. We met with the chaplain (Chris Skoggins) in March 2002 when we were officially breaking up. I did my ethics program for pulling in the rape and assaults, and asked Danny if he was going in.

Was this meeting organized by the church? Yes. For what purpose? To work out the terms of our breakup.

Sorry, short on time and we’re going back in for the last part of the day. Back out soon!

 
After the afternoon break

OK, we’re out for the day. Now here’s what happened.

Back to the direct examination of Christina B and the meeting organized by Scientology work out the terms of her break up with Danny Masterson.

The meeting was held in the courtyard outside the president’s office at the Celebrity Centre. She was asked to promise that she would never sue Danny. “I didn’t get a copy of it.” she said.

She promised not to sue him. “I don’t want anything from him,” she said. She signed it.

No further questions from Deputy DA Mueller.

Cross examination of Christina B.

Meseareau: You made a trip to the Austin police department to report a rape. Yes. You were living in Austin then. Yes. This was December 2016. You reported a single act of rape, from December 2001. Correct. You never reported anything that happened in November. Correct.

Did your husband suggest that you do that? No. You did that on your own. Yes.

Did you talk to Leah Remini? After I reported the rape. Never before? Christina B. indicated that before reporting to the police, she had communicated to Leah with Twitter.

The judge interrupts here, clarifying that tweeting at Leah was not the same as speaking at her.

Did Leah Remini ever tell you that making a police report was a rite of initiation to be on her show? No. I never wanted to be on her show.

Did you ever meet with Mr. Mueller and Leah Remini? Never. I came with Leah to the arraignment because I had nobody else.

Mesereau asks her why she didn’t report the November 2001 (which is now the charging incident) when she went to the Austin PD? I struggled with it. It is a rape.

When you described pulling Danny’s hair to Detective Reyes (in November 2001), did you say that Danny was trying to have sex with you? I don’t remember. You want to hear the tape?

Going downstairs. Back in a second.

Attorney Sharon Appelbaum played the recording back of the interview with Reyes. But when we hear it, it’s clear that it’s Det. Reyes who says, “He was trying to have sex with you?” in the November 2001 incident, and you can hear Christina B. say “yes.”

Just moments later Mesereau, in a very accusatory manner, is saying, “When you described pulling his hair, you said he was trying to have sex.”

It’s outrageous. It was clearly REYES who said on the tape, but Mesereau is now trying to get Christina B. to say she had said it.

Instead, she responds that when she heard “trying to have sex” she thought it was a reference to “trying to have sex to completion.” And that she believed this was a semantic issue.

Incredibly, Mesereau then claimed that a tape of her describing to Mueller, months later, also referred only to “trying to have sex.” So he had that played back, and instead we could clearly hear Christina B. talking about Masterson “putting himself inside of me.”

We kept waiting for Mueller to object to this bizarre and dishonest interrogation Mesereau was putting her through, but he didn’t say anything. Perhaps he will on redirect.

A little later, Mesereau is again questioning her about how she had previously not referred to the November 2001 incident as rape, and Judge Olmedo points out that she had testified that it took a long time for her to understand the importance of that event. The judge, at least, seems to understand that concept.

Mesereau asked her about the report she had made to Scientology, which was also about the December event and not the November one. And at this point Christina B. got emotional. “Because it was normal. I didn’t know any better,” she said. “I reported sexual assault to them.”

You are civilly suing Danny Masterson, right? The same lawyers are representing you and Jane Doe 1? Yes. You all talk together about it? No. I don’t talk to all of them.

In the civil case, you mention one incident of sexual assault. Anal sex. Reported to the church. Again, the December not the November incident.

Mesereau now backs up to go over her background. She was in a relationship with Danny from 1996 to 2002. Did you live with him? Yes. Where? With his mother at first, and his 16-year old brother, 7-year-old sister, and 6-year-old brother. I loved those kids. Then we got an apartment. And then he booked a TV series and bought a house.

After you broke up with him. You moved out. You still had sex with him? A couple of times, yes. Where? In Los Angeles. The last time in New York. He took a photo of me naked and said this would never happen again.

You stayed in touch after you broke up. We would see each other. Then I didn’t want to see him anymore and I moved to New York. I got new friends.

And you had sex with him there. Objection, argumentative.

After the break up: We were friendly. We would see each other out. I didn’t want any trouble.

You sent him emails? I sent him an email about an employee, asking for help with his drug use.

You’re accusing him of drugging you and sodomizing you, but after that you referred a person to him to get help with drug abuse?

Through tears: Explained that she had not wanted to think about what happened to her that night. “I didn’t want to think he was capable of doing that to me.”

Mesereau now asks her about becoming a Scientologist after she started dating Masterson. Asked if she read books. Then he asked her, this idea that reporting another Scientologist to the police is a suppressive act? Where does it say that?

She was clearly not sure, but suggested it was in the Ethics Book. She remembered reading a chapter about suppressive acts and high crimes.

Mesereau: The Introduction to Scientology Ethics? By L. Ron Hubbard. And lo and behold, Appelbaum had a copy of the book right there. He asked her if it actually says such a thing in that book, and she said she didn’t know. They asked her to review the book at the break.

(Meanwhile, at the break, it took us a few seconds to pull up the 1965 HCOPL, “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS: SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” which includes this paragraph: “Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology” and “Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist, including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund, without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply.”)

After the breakup with Danny did you continue in Scientology? I struggled. You introduced your current husband to it, didn’t you? Yes.

Judge Olmedo admonished Mesereau that she was allowing questions about Scientology as long as they went to explaining what took the women longer to report. She asked him to move on.

Did you continue to see Danny Masterson as Scientology events after the breakup? I don’t recall seeing him.

Mesereau produces a photo from the New Year’s Eve 2011 celebration, and Christina B. and her husband are not far away from Danny Masterson in an audience shot.

“The president’s office sat me right behind him,” she said. Mesereau showed her the photograph, asking her if it didn’t depict her looking right at Masterson.

I’m not looking right at him. Yes you are. I’m looking up to the right. I’m probably looking at L. Ron Hubbard saying hip, hip, hooray. (And even from our distant viewpoint it did appear to be an ovation moment in the crowd and looking like an LRH celebration moment.)

Were you still a member then, in 2010-2011?

I got back in because I almost died of a miscarriage. I thought I pulled that in, and so I brought my husband in with me. He did the Purif.

She then had to help the court reporter understand that she was saying “Purif.”

Before you contacted Austin PD, did you contact RAINN? And you reported a single act of anal rape to that hotline. I didn’t report anything, I was asking questions.

You were asking the people at RAINN how to report a rape. Did you tell anyone at that hotline that you wanted to report a sexual assault from December 2001? I don’t remember.

He then asked her how many glasses of wine she’d had at La Poubelle in December 2001 (she had already said two) and at this point it really felt like Mesereau was stretching things out to kill the clock.

At one point, Mesereau seemed to be suggesting that she couldn’t know if she was raped if she’d been asleep and Christina B. jumped on it: “He told me what he did.”

After a recess, the cross-examination continued.

Did you review the Ethics book? Yes. The chapter about Suppressive Acts? Yes. Did you see anything about that it’s a suppressive act to make a police report? No.

He then brought up a report written by Det. Reyes (remember, the disastrous LAPD officer that the women complained about) and in that report it states that Christina B. remembered going home from the restaurant on the night of the December 2001 incident. (Now she’s saying she doesn’t remember anything after she got up to go home.)

“I don’t know why I would say that to Reyes because it’s not true.”

When did you first meet Jane Doe 1? With Detective Reyes.

Christina B. explained that she had learned before that that Jane Doe 1 was also a victim.

From whom? From Damian Perkins? Yes. Did you know him? Yes. How? He was a friend of Danny’s. Did you associate with Damian as a friend? No, not really.

So Damian called you? We spoke on the phone. What did he tell you? I had reached out to him for something else, he asked to talk on the phone. He asked me if Danny had ever raped me. Did you tell him that you had been raped? I did.

So you spoke to Jane Doe 1 after talking to Damian Perkins? After, yes. Had you spoken to her before? Yes. Did she encourage you to report to the police? No, but she was supportive.

Now Mesereau asks her repeated questions about the communications she’s had with Jane Doe 1 about the case over the years.

“We’ve kept in contact. She became like a sister. Our families love one another. But the case, it’s not something we talk about regularly.”

Are you and Jane Doe 1 friends? Yes. When did that start? October 2016. And before that? I knew of her. She was best friends with Danny’s assistant.

Have you been talking to Jane Doe 1 about the case? Yes. When was the last time? “Today I hugged her and said I’m proud of you. Is that talking about the case? I don’t know.”

Were you ever told by the LAPD not to communicate with the other victims? Reyes told us, so we said goodbye and we were emotional. But then later we had to speak to each other.

Jane Doe 2: Who is she? She was raped by Danny Masterson. Were you there? No, but I believe her.

When you talk with her? The end of October 2016.

You spoke with Jane Doe 2 before you went to the police, so before you went to the police you spoke to both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2? yes.

What was your first contact with Leah Remini? I tweeted her. Before you made your first police report? I asked her if Mike Rinder knew of someone who had left the Celebrity Centre. I was shocked to learn I wasn’t the only victim. I asked Leah if she would possibly know about this before I was going to the police.

Have you talked to the other victims? Yes. How many? Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and an ex-girlfriend.

Have you been interviewed by Leah Remini that you were raped? Yes. When? It was for her show. How many interviews have you given her? Twice. Recorded? Yes.

Mesereau refers to what she said in those interviews, but Olmedo butts in, saying you’ve established already that she reported the December incident, not the November one, move on.

Kevin Becker at the LAPD: I haven’t met him. Irrelevant, move on.

Who first told her about Jane Doe 2? She answered “Mariah O’Brien.”

You told Reyes you had also talked to Leah Remini? Irrelevant, move on. You asked Reyes to contact Leah Remini? Irrelevant, move on.

You have posted on social media that Danny Masterson raped you? Incorrect. You have posted on social media — “After he had his publicist name me,” she answered forcefully.

Have you talked to reporters about this case? Irrelevant, move on.

Do you know who Tony Ortega is?

Judge Olmedo: Why do you ask a question that you know I’m going to object to?

Mesereau: I apologize, your honor. I’ll move on.

The Austin PD asked about your relationship to Danny, do you remember saying that you were his common-law spouse? The judge admonished him that this was not a precise term and that it was irrelevant even if she did.

Getting back to ethics officer Miranda Skoggins. Did you tell her that you were raped? Yes, the next day. I told her what he told me he did to me. She had me write a report.

About the rape? She let me know that it wasn’t rape, that I pulled it in, and then I started an ethics program. She had me write a “Things that shouldn’t be” report. She helped me write it. And then I had to focus on myself and why I pulled it in. She said I wasn’t allowed to use the “r” word. And I didn’t tell anyone about it.

And that was it for today. We’ll be back at 9 am tomorrow morning, hoping Mesereau will soon wrap up his cross-examination of Christina B.

 
——————–

Source Code

“We are the only science of mind that has ever come up the line and sat back on its haunches and proved itself across the board, we can also undo that. If we want to take enough trouble we can also save Gracey Zilch. One auditor sits on her head and the other straps the cans to her feet and a third, as she’s being held down, locates what she has been doing on an E-Meter, you see something like a Joburg or something like this, you see, and actually gets the thing taped out and then finally says, ‘Well, Gracey, we’ve got the goods on you. And now why don’t you go off someplace and realize that if you don’t do something decent about this, you’re sunk.’ And I don’t care it might take two hours, two years or two lifetimes; sooner or later she’s going to come in and tell all. Fascinating, huh? We can undo it. So, in a little, tiny, microscopic way, not accepting a half a million dollars from the Communist Party of America to do in a Central Organization; that of course killed a man. I bet you right now he’s tagging around in a schoolroom someplace or another, wondering what is wrong with him and why he feels so spinny. Fellow by the name of Don Purcell. He died. He did this, and for three years he just went on a toboggan and died. One of the reasons was is nobody was interested enough to even try to do anything for him. And the other thing was he had made it impossible to arrive at that data earlier by causing such a tremendous disturbance that he slowed up research.” — L. Ron Hubbard, May 19, 1961

 
——————–

Avast, Ye Mateys

“The technical material I developed from ’68 to ’71 on Flag is published here, trained on here and applied here. We have the best auditors in the world. They are very few. While the Flag Ship Org keeps a ship here, keeps ports here and services those abroad, so that these activities can take place. The Flag Bureaux pushes the Administrative planning and programming which forms up the Continental Liaison Offices which hold the orgs there for FEBCs to return to. Everyone on Flag contributes to these successes, no matter what his post is. We are all operating directly on the VFP of a Cleared Planet. Sometimes this may not be as visible as it might be to someone with his head down into some routine job. But you can measure the success of what you’re doing. Look at the sky-rocketing rise of stats over the world. That’s my stat and Yours. It is in Power.” — The Commodore, May 19, 1971

 
——————–

Overheard in the FreeZone

“LRH made an amazing technology. I don’t believe for a moment that LRH himself was corrupt. What makes more sense to me is that he was corrupted by the corrupt. What were his ‘crimes’? Trial and error? What crimes can the tech be guilty of? None. The guilty are those who misapplied it. There was corruption in the church, that cannot be denied. But badmouthing the founder of an amazing tech won’t gain it the appeal it so desperately needs to become a movement. We need more support of the tech properly applied. Why are we trying to take away the validity of his research and tech? Why be part of the negative? Should we not be focused on proper application so that we can save the world?”

Past is Prologue

1996: Mark Ebner, who briefly joined Scientology and wrote an article in Spy magazine about his experience, posted a brief description of the response following the article. “I have saved the threatening letters from Scieno lawyers that arrived prior to the publication of my Spy expose. Claiming to be me, they also called the magazine’s printer in Kentucky trying to get advance copies. My credit card was fucked with in a big way.”

 
——————–

Random Howdy

“Thank god I didn’t have to go to confession. It would have taken a team of priests working in shifts to cover my multitude of sins.”

 
——————–

Full Court Press: What we’re watching at the Underground Bunker

Criminal prosecutions:
— Danny Masterson charged for raping three women: Preliminary hearing set for May 18.
— Jay and Jeff Spina, Medicare fraud: Jay sentenced to 9 years in prison. Jeff’s sentencing to be scheduled.
— Hanan and Rizza Islam and other family members, Medi-Cal fraud: Pretrial conference May 20 in Los Angeles
— David Gentile, GPB Capital, fraud: Next pretrial conference set for June 18.

Civil litigation:
— Luis and Rocio Garcia v. Scientology: Oral arguments were heard on July 30 at the Eleventh Circuit
— Valerie Haney v. Scientology: Forced to ‘religious arbitration.’ Petition for writ of mandate denied Oct 22 by Cal 2nd Appellate District. Petition for review by state supreme court denied Dec 11.
— Chrissie Bixler et al. v. Scientology and Danny Masterson: Dec 30, Judge Kleifield granted Scientology’s motions to compel arbitration. June 7: Status conference.
— Matt and Kathy Feschbach tax debt: Eleventh Circuit ruled on Sept 9 that Feshbachs can’t discharge IRS debt in bankruptcy. Dec 17: Feshbachs sign court judgment obliging them to pay entire $3.674 million tax debt, plus interest from Nov 19.
— Brian Statler Sr v. City of Inglewood: Second amended complaint filed, trial set for Nov 9, 2021.
— Author Steve Cannane defamation trial: Trial concluded, Cannane victorious, awarded court costs. Case appealed on Dec 24.

Concluded litigation:
— Dennis Nobbe, Medicare fraud, PPP loan fraud: Charged July 29. Bond revoked Sep 14. Nobbe dead, Sep 14.
— Jane Doe v. Scientology (in Miami): Jane Doe dismissed the lawsuit on May 15 after the Clearwater Police dropped their criminal investigation of her allegations.

 
——————–

SCIENTOLOGY BLACK OPS: Tom Cruise and dirty tricks

The Australian Seven News network cancelled a 10-part investigation of Scientology and its history of dirty tricks. Read the transcripts of the episodes and judge for yourself why Tom Cruise and Tommy Davis might not have wanted viewers to see this hard-hitting series by journalist Bryan Seymour.

SCIENTOLOGY: FAIR GAME

After the success of their double-Emmy-winning, three-season A&E series ‘Scientology and the Aftermath,’ Leah Remini and Mike Rinder continue the conversation on their podcast, ‘Scientology: Fair Game.’ We’ve created a landing page where you can hear all of the episodes so far.

LEAH REMINI: SCIENTOLOGY AND THE AFTERMATH

An episode-by-episode guide to Leah Remini’s three-season, double-Emmy winning series that changed everything for Scientology watching. Originally aired from 2016 to 2019 on the A&E network, and now on Netflix.

SCIENTOLOGY’S CELEBRITIES, from A to Z

Find your favorite Hubbardite celeb at this index page — or suggest someone to add to the list!

 
Other links: Scientology’s Ideal Orgs, from one end of the planet to the other. Scientology’s sneaky front groups, spreading the good news about L. Ron Hubbard while pretending to benefit society. Scientology Lit: Books reviewed or excerpted in a weekly series. How many have you read?

 
——————–

THE WHOLE TRACK

[ONE year ago] Mark Bunker wants to get the FBI looking at Scientology in Clearwater
[TWO years ago] Free of measles, Scientology’s cruise ship gets back to separating OTs from their money
[THREE years ago] When Scientology leader David Miscavige targets you for a beatdown: A Jefferson Hawkins classic
[FOUR years ago] Elisabeth Moss in this week’s ‘Handmaid’ sure sounded like FBI testimony about Scientology
[FIVE years ago] Here are the instructions Scientologists are getting for the May 28 media center opening!
[SIX years ago] Leah Remini helps us celebrate our book in Los Angeles with a gang of Scientology ‘SPs’
[SEVEN years ago] Scientology’s drug rehab network sued for conspiring to misuse counseling credentials
[EIGHT years ago] How Not to Protest Scientology
[TEN years ago] Scientology Deathwatch: Kenickie Edition

 
——————–

——————–

Posted by Tony Ortega on May 19, 2021 at 07:00

E-mail tips to tonyo94 AT gmail DOT com or follow us on Twitter. We also post updates at our Facebook author page. After every new story we send out an alert to our e-mail list and our FB page.

Our new book with Paulette Cooper, Battlefield Scientology: Exposing L. Ron Hubbard’s dangerous ‘religion’ is now on sale at Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats. Our book about Paulette, The Unbreakable Miss Lovely: How the Church of Scientology tried to destroy Paulette Cooper, is on sale at Amazon in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook versions. We’ve posted photographs of Paulette and scenes from her life at a separate location. Reader Sookie put together a complete index. More information can also be found at the book’s dedicated page.

The Best of the Underground Bunker, 1995-2020 Just starting out here? We’ve picked out the most important stories we’ve covered here at the Underground Bunker (2012-2020), The Village Voice (2008-2012), New Times Los Angeles (1999-2002) and the Phoenix New Times (1995-1999)

Other links: BLOGGING DIANETICS: Reading Scientology’s founding text cover to cover | UP THE BRIDGE: Claire Headley and Bruce Hines train us as Scientologists | GETTING OUR ETHICS IN: Jefferson Hawkins explains Scientology’s system of justice | SCIENTOLOGY MYTHBUSTING: Historian Jon Atack discusses key Scientology concepts | Shelly Miscavige, 15 years gone | The Lisa McPherson story told in real time | The Cathriona White stories | The Leah Remini ‘Knowledge Reports’ | Hear audio of a Scientology excommunication | Scientology’s little day care of horrors | Whatever happened to Steve Fishman? | Felony charges for Scientology’s drug rehab scam | Why Scientology digs bomb-proof vaults in the desert | PZ Myers reads L. Ron Hubbard’s “A History of Man” | Scientology’s Master Spies | The mystery of the richest Scientologist and his wayward sons | Scientology’s shocking mistreatment of the mentally ill | The Underground Bunker’s Official Theme Song | The Underground Bunker FAQ

Watch our short videos that explain Scientology’s controversies in three minutes or less…

Check your whale level at our dedicated page for status updates, or join us at the Underground Bunker’s Facebook discussion group for more frivolity.

Our non-Scientology stories: Robert Burnham Jr., the man who inscribed the universe | Notorious alt-right inspiration Kevin MacDonald and his theories about Jewish DNA | The selling of the “Phoenix Lights” | Astronomer Harlow Shapley‘s FBI file | Sex, spies, and local TV news | Battling Babe-Hounds: Ross Jeffries v. R. Don Steele