Judge Olmedo rules: Here are the details from the rulings on Danny Masterson’s retrial

 
Yesterday Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo issued lengthy rulings about Danny Masterson’s retrial, which is now scheduled to start on April 17. Late in the afternoon, we gave you a quick rundown of the major issues she covered in those rulings, including her decision to allow the testimony of Claire Headley as a Scientology expert, and Kathleen Jenkins as a fifth victim. Neither one of them took part in the first trial.

We know, however, that our audience loves the details. So we have pulled out the 23 individual rulings from Judge Olmedo’s 39-page document, holding back her lengthy citations of case law.

In the first part of the document, she goes into some length about how much time the defense has had to prepare, and she grants a short delay, moving back the start of jury selection from April 11 to April 17.

Then, she begins rolling out the many issues she has been asked to consider…

1. Request for Additional Time for Attorney Voir Dire…

The Court GRANTS additional time for counsel to question the prospective jurors as discussed in court with the parties. Counsel may also ask for additional time if necessary, subject to the Court’s discretion, or submit additional questions to the Court for further inquiry. The Court will entertain these requests so long as the attorney-conducted voir dire does not include improper questioning of the prospective jurors for the purpose of preconditioning and/or indoctrinating the prospective jurors.

2. The Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Scientology…

The Court ADMITS Scientology evidence in the case at hand. Defendant lacks standing to raise a First Amendment claim on behalf of Scientology. Additionally, the admission of Scientology practices and beliefs in no way interferes with defendant’s own beliefs and practices related to Scientology. Assuming arguendo defendant has standing to raise this claim, the Court finds that the admission of Scientology evidence does not violate defendant’s First Amendment right, the Ecclesiastical Doctrine or Evidence Code Section 789.

The admission of Scientology evidence in the above-captioned case provides an important context for the victims’ delayed reporting of the crimes which itself bears on the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility and the actual occurrence of the crimes. In addition, Scientology practices and beliefs are relevant to understanding the meetings and relationships that the victims had with defendant; defendant’s actions towards the victims; the victims’ actions before, during and after the charged crimes; the victims’ initial acceptance of defendant’s behavior and the families’ subsequent reactions. Thus, Scientology practices and beliefs are relevant to determining whether defendant committed the alleged crimes.

Scientology evidence (including the definitions and explanations of Scientology terms and positions within the organization) is admissible for the following purposes:

a. To explain the victims’ delay in reporting the charged crimes including reports made to individuals within the Scientology organization and their response to those claims including any correspondence and/or documents;

b. To explain the victims’ belief that Scientology prohibits them from reporting crimes committed by other Scientologists in good standing to outside (non-Scientologists) law enforcement. This includes the belief that Scientologists hold disdain for outside law enforcement and the secular court systems;

c. To explain the victims’ fear of retaliation, fear of being declared a suppressive person and fear of harassment experienced after reporting the charged crimes to outside law enforcement;

d. To explain the victims’ actions before, during and after the charged incidents and relevant to the charged incidents;

e. To explain all witness’ (prosecution and defense) ties to the Scientology organization, past and present, in order to understand the nature and context of the relationships between the individuals testifying before the jury;

f. To explain the discrepancy between [Jane Doe 1’s] first statement as written under the direction of and supervision by Scientology officials and [Jane Doe 1’s] later statements made free from any direct and immediate Scientology influence; and

g. Expert testimony regarding Scientology relevant to the above listed categories and as further set forth later in this Order.

3. Testimony that Complainants Felt Drugged…

The Court ADMITS testimony regarding how the victims, charged and uncharged, felt after drinking a beverage provided by the defendant. First, whether or not the complainants were intoxicated or drugged is directly relevant to their ability to perceive the events of the charged incidents and to communicate regarding the facts of the charged incidents. This is especially true in light of the fact that defendant has vigorously cross examined the complainants about their ability to perceive the incidents and their ability or inability to repeatedly recount the detailed facts of those incidents after the occurrence of the incidents. Second, being intoxicated and the circumstances surrounding the intoxication during the incidents are directly relevant to how the sexual intercourse occurred and if it was completed forcefully and against the victims’ will. In other words, it is inextricably intertwined with the commission of the sexual intercourse and is a circumstance relevant to the use of force to complete the act and overcome the victims’ will and lack of consent. The fact of intoxication by either alcohol or drugs does not negate or supersede the use of force, if present, during the commission of the charged incidents. The ingestion of alcohol and/or drugs by the victim and the use of force by the perpetrator are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the intoxicated state of the victim may facilitate the use of force by the perpetrator. Accordingly, this evidence is admissible.

However, the Court EXCLUDES any evidence regarding [Jane Doe 1’s] urination in the street. Defense argues that this constitutes evidence of [Jane Doe 1’s] intoxication prior to the incident. There are multitude of reasons why one may urinate in the street that are unrelated to alcohol consumption. To spend trial time debating all of those reasons is collateral and time consuming. Furthermore, the defense has no contrary evidence to show that [Jane Doe 1] consumed alcoholic beverages prior to her urination, and she denies having had any such beverages. Thus, defense is requesting permission for the jury to wholly speculate, which is directly contrary to the charge that the Court will give the jury. The Court finds that such assertion is speculative at best and more prejudicial than probative. For reasons pursuant to Section 352, the Court will not allow questions in this area.

4. Expert testimony…

The Court ADMITS the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Barbara Ziv on the subjects of 1) intimate partner sexual assault and violence and 2) effects of alcohol and drugs on the brain and memory.

The Court also GRANTS the admission of the proffered expert testimony of Claire Headley on the subjects of 1) Scientology teachings that a person in an intimate relationship cannot be raped; 2) that Scientologists cannot use the word rape and 3) that Scientologists are prohibited or discouraged from reporting other Scientologists in good standing to outside law enforcement or face repercussions for doing so; and 4) the purpose and meaning of conversations with, statements to, and correspondence between the victims and Scientology officials regarding the charged incidents. The Court finds that the proffered subjects fall outside the common knowledge of the lay person and that the proffered testimony would assist the jury. The Court finds that questions of qualifications and bias go to the weight, not the admissibility of the proffered testimony.

The Court GRANTS the testimony of an LAPD analyst regarding toxicology and date rape drugs in the People’s case in chief. How date rape drugs are ingested and the impact of ingesting date rape drugs are beyond the common knowledge of the jury. The toxicologist cannot render an opinion if date rape drugs were utilized in conjunction with any of the charged or uncharged incidents. However, the toxicologist may render an opinion regarding a hypothetical that contains facts established by the evidence in the instant case.

5. Uncharged Sex Offenses and Prior Bad Acts…

The Court ADMITS the testimony of [Jane Doe 3’s] testimony regarding the uncharged sexual assault, Tricia V.’s testimony regarding two incidents of uncharged conduct and Kathleen J.’s testimony regarding uncharged conduct. Defendant, at the first trial, argued that all of the charged sexual incidents in fact, never occurred and that the victims colluded together to manufacture the charges against the defendant. Thus, the defense is squarely attacking the victims in all aspects of their testimony and alleging that their recounting of the charged incidents are utter fabrication. By emphasizing collusion and fabrication on the part of the victims, the Court finds that the 1108, 1109 and 1101(b) evidence to be more probative than prejudicial. The testimony of Tricia V., Kathleen J. and [Jane Doe 3] regarding uncharged bad acts is admissible.

6. Victims’ Prior Sexual Histories and Partners…

The Court EXCLUDES the victims’, charged and uncharged, prior sexual history and prior sexual partners. This includes the exclusion of alleged incidents of [Jane Doe 2’s] prior sexual history and prior sexual partners, [Jane Doe 1’s] claim of rape by Aikan Abrey, alleged sexual conduct between [Jane Doe 1] and Bryten Goss, any dating relationship between [Jane Doe 1] and any other partner including an officer from the LAPD Wilshire Station, testimony regarding Johnny Houston’s statement of opinion about [Jane Doe 3], and any statement by [Jane Doe 3] regarding intimacy with the defendant’s brother, whether true or untrue. Should defendant seek to introduce any evidence regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witnesses to attack their credibility, defendant must follow the procedure set forth in Evidence Code Section 782 or at the very least, notify the Court to prior to seeking the introduction of such testimony.

7. Harassment of and/or Threats to the Complainants and Witnesses…

The Court ADMITS testimony regarding the witnesses fear of retaliation, fear of being declared a suppressive person and thus separated from family and friends or excommunicated from Scientology, belief that they had been harassed by Scientology for cooperating with police regarding the charged offense, the fact that the victims filed a civil law suit alleging instances of stalking and harassment related to reporting the charged incidents in the above captioned case, and the settlement agreement regarding the incident and the amount paid pursuant to the agreement entered into between [Jane Doe 1] and defendant. This evidence is more probative than prejudicial and is relevant to the evaluation of the witness’s credibility and truthfulness, to the evaluation of any inconsistencies between witnesses statements, to explain the witnesses actions after the incidents and to explain the delay in reporting the incidents to outside law enforcement.

8. [Jane Doe 1’s] Lay Opinion that Attempted Penetration was Accidental…

The Court EXCLUDES any questions of [Jane Doe 1] regarding her lay opinion of whether, in 2002, defendant accidentally attempted to penetrate her anus with his penis. This falls outside Evidence Code Section 800 as permissible lay opinion testimony as [Jane Doe 1] cannot testify to defendant’s state of mind. She can, however, testify to defendant’s actions and objective behavior.

9. Detective Reyes’ Testimony Re Victims’ Statements…

The Court ADMITS the testimony of Detective Reyes regarding inconsistent and consistent statements of the victims as set forth below. If defendant impeaches the victims with portions of Detective Reyes’s report encapsulating their interviews with inconsistent statements, the People are allowed to bring forth those statements from the same interview that are consistent with the victims’ trial testimony as well as the entirety of the remainder of the interviews, subject to any 352 determinations. The defense cross examined each victim at length regarding all statements made about the incidents including all statements made to various police officials.

The defense alleges that the victims have colluded together to fabricate their entire version of events and further alleges that the charged events never occurred. In so questioning, the defense makes a broad claim of fabrication as to all victims. In addition, defense questioned both the victims and the police officers regarding various statements, both what was in those statements and what was missing from those statements. Thus, various statements were admitted by the defense as prior inconsistent statements, and then by the People as prior consistent statements. If defense brings forth portions of statements of victims as inconsistent with their trial testimony, the People may bring forth the full interview of the witness as prior consistent statements.

10. Pending Civil Suit and 2004 Settlement Agreement…

The Court ADMITS evidence regarding the facts that the victims filed a civil lawsuit in 2017 [actually August 2019], which is still pending, alleging claims of harassment and stalking against defendant, the Scientology organization and David Miscavige, and seeking damages. The Court EXCLUDES any further inquiry into this matter.

11. Judicial Notice of CCP 340.3…

The Court EXCLUDES any testimony or evidence regarding CCP 340.3. Defense wants to argue that the existence of civil statutory law extending the statute of limitations under certain circumstances for certain sex offenses provides a motive for the victims to lie in the instant case. In so doing, defense alleges that the victims are further motivated to fabricate the charged offenses so that upon conviction in the criminal case, they can bring a new civil action against defendant for the specific sex offenses. All of this is speculative and requires the jurors to both speculate about actions which have not yet occurred and to further consider the impact of a guilty verdict on the defendant. With the exception of a death penalty case, this type of argument is in direct conflict with the charge a trial court gives to every jury in a criminal case. The Court finds that this proferred evidence is speculative, irrelevant or collateral at best. Furthermore, it would be confusing and misleading to the jury. Thus, it is excluded.

12. Defendant’s Possession of Guns:

[Jane Doe 1] testified that defendant displayed a gun during the charged incident. An independent record search established that defendant had a firearm registered to him during the relevant time period. The Court ADMITS this evidence. However, the Court EXCLUDES any reference to other firearms unless permission is first sought from the Court for its admission.

13. Girls Gone Wild References:

The Court EXCLUDES this evidence unless permission is first sought from the Court for its admission.

14. Detective Vargas’s Instruction to [Jane Doe 1] Re Clarifications:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

15. “Gun” has Special Meaning to Police Report Writing:

The Court EXCLUDES this evidence. Detective Schlegel can testify that the word gun has unique importance to him based upon his training, but he cannot and does not speak for all law enforcement generally, all Los Angeles Police Department officers, nor all officers at a particular station.

16. [Jane Doe 1’s] Omission to Detective Schlegel:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

17. Scientology Lawyer’s Actions regarding Trial Witnesses:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

18. Defendant’s DJ Name of “DJ Donkey Punch”…

[The Court] RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

19. Testimony regarding Lily:

The Court EXCLUDES any mention of Lily or the circumstances surrounding her death and alleged incident involving defendant.

20. [Jane Doe 2’s] Prior Incidents with Watson and Others and her Father’s Death:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial. However, the Court ADMITS testimony regarding [Jane Doe 2’s] previous attempts to report sexual assaults, if any, to officials within the Scientology organization and how the previous interaction with Scientology officials impacted her conduct related to the charged offense.

21. Testimony of Nicolas Olszewski:

The Court EXCLUDES the testimony of Nicolas Olszewski in the People’s case in chief. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 352, the Court finds this testimony unduly time consuming and remote in time, having occurred more than a decade after the most recent charged incident. Moreover, this proffered testimony does not establish that defendant had this knowledge in the period of time from 2000 to 2004. Should defendant testify on his own behalf or the door be opened as to this testimony, the People may request reconsideration of this ruling.

22. Mention of “D.A. Reject” Status…

The Court EXCLUDES any mention or reference to the status of the case or investigation as a “D.A. Reject.” This is irrelevant, misleading to the jury and unduly time consuming. Such evidence leads the jury to infer that the District Attorney’s Office did not believe [Jane Doe 1] when in fact, there are many reasons why a case may not initially be filed. To rebut this evidence would require the District Attorney’s Office employees to become witnesses in the case and to possibly assert that they do in fact believe that [Jane Doe 1] is truthful and that defendant is guilty — both opinions of which would be improper to render in front of a jury. The defense may bring forth that in 2004, and then again more than a decade later, the Detectives had contact with the District Attorney’s Office regarding the 2003 incident. The defense may also bring forth that after the later contact Detectives had with the District Attorney’s Office, charges were filed shortly thereafter. The Court will not allow ANY questions regarding the opinions or actions of the District Attorney’s Office in the intervening time, any questions or use of the term “DA reject” or “declination” or any questions regarding actions taken by the District Attorney’s office in 2004 regarding the 2003 incident. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 352, the Court finds that this term and status and any questions in this area are more prejudicial than probative, confusing to the jury and misleading. What is relevant is whether the jury believes the charges have been proven at trial, not the opinion of the District Attorney’s filing deputy on an earlier date.

23. Reasonable Doubt Chart:

The Court AUTHORIZES the use of the reasonable doubt chart with modification. The Court will allow the chart to be displayed once the word “definitely” is removed from appearing directly in front of “reasonable doubt.” Nowhere in the reasonable doubt jury instruction does the word “definitely” appear. While defense may use a chart, it must also accurately state the law and the charge to the jury. Accordingly the word “definitely” must be removed to comport with the law. In addition, the defense and the People must submit any demonstrative charts to the Court for approval before their use in argument or any other stage of the trial.

— Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge of the Superior Court

 
——————–

Technology Cocktail

“Aberration is caused by cut communication with the mass, and is remedied by reestablished communication with the mass. Look what they are doing with the A-bomb. This is one of the silliest things you ever saw in your life. They make everything about it confidential, secret, and nobody must be let in on it. And there is possibly no more illness to radiation than that.” — L. Ron Hubbard, 1957

 
——————–

THE PROSECUTION OF DANNY MASTERSON

We first broke the news of the LAPD’s investigation of Scientology celebrity Danny Masterson on rape allegations in 2017, and we’ve been covering the story every step of the way since then. At this page we’ve collected our most important links as Danny faces a potential sentence of 45 years to life in prison. NOW WITH TRIAL INDEX.

 
——————–

THE PODCAST: How many have you heard?

[1] Marc Headley [2] Claire Headley [3] Jeffrey Augustine [4] Bruce Hines [5] Sunny Pereira [6] Pete Griffiths [7] Geoff Levin [8] Patty Moher [9] Marc Headley [10] Jefferson Hawkins [11] Michelle ‘Emma’ Ryan [12] Paulette Cooper [13] Jesse Prince [14] Mark Bunker [15] Jon Atack [16] Mirriam Francis [17] Bruce Hines on MSH

— SPECIAL: The best TV show on Scientology you never got to see

[1] Phil Jones [2] Derek Bloch [3] Carol Nyburg [4] Katrina Reyes [5] Jamie DeWolf

— The first Danny Masterson trial and beyond

[18] Trial special with Chris Shelton [19] Trial week one [20] Marc Headley on the spy in the hallway [21] Trial week two [22] Trial week three [23] Trial week four [24] Leah Remini on LAPD Corruption [25] Mike Rinder 2022 Thanksgiving Special [26] Jane Doe 4 (Tricia Vessey), Part One [27] Jane Doe 4 (Tricia Vessey), Part Two [28] Claire Headley on the trial [29] Tory Christman [30] Bruce Hines on spying [31] Karen de la Carriere [32] Ron Miscavige on Shelly Miscavige [33] Karen de la Carriere on the L’s [34] Mark Bunker on Miscavige hiding [35] Mark Plummer [36] Mark Ebner [37] Karen Pressley [38] Steve Cannane [39] Fredrick Brennan [40] Clarissa Adams [41] Louise Shekter

 
——————–

Source Code

“Let’s take CCH 1, ‘Give me that hand.’ It could have possibly also — I am not saying you should run it with this command, but you — ‘Reach me. Reach me. Reach me.’ You get the similarity here? See, PC really is at cause, see? You could just say, ‘Reach me.’ And make sure that he did and it would be quite interesting. I don’t advocate that you fellows do this, although once in a while, some squirrel auditor develops some technology by which he can use Scientology to make a girl more accessible. Now personally, I find it difficult to understand this, because I myself, you see, have never needed Scientology! I don’t waste a brag, but I just want to point this out. Here you have a situation where that’s a poor show. But you actually could take a girl and have her reach your right knee and your left knee and your right shoulder and your left shoulder and your nose and the top of your head and your right hand and left hand. And every now and then, ask her how she feels about you. And if you don’t flatten the process, just about the time this thing goes into the plus state, she’ll tell you she’s mad about you, she thinks you’re wonderful. That’s right.” — L. Ron Hubbard, March 29, 1962

 
——————–

Avast, Ye Mateys

“There is not one person aboard, swabbie, snipe or clerk who is not vital to maintaining our presence on Int lines either by keeping the ship running or safe or actually pushing comm pkgs or admin actions. To the several million Scientologists in the world our presence is felt even when it is only quietly acting within orgs over the world. There’s an awful lot of lightning and thetan power in this theta line and everyone on board is contributing to it. Whatever the grease on your nose or the callouses on your ball point finger you are helping to keep this line in existence and contributing your energy and actions to pushing it through. Next time you’re tired or upset — remember that.” — The Commodore, March 29, 1970

 
——————–

Overheard in the FreeZone

“Max Plank indicated the area of research by stating that in quantum physics it is consciousness that is found underlying all of that physical phenomena. L. Ron Hubbard was trained not only in atomic and molecular phenomena (nuclear physics) and engineering, but also in magic, the Veda and all that stuff dealing with life and consciousness. This indicates the character of the real 21st century scientist, one knowledgeable in quantum physics as well as magic, the Veda and oriental knowledge, including — oh gosh! — the work of Aleister Crowley, anathema and excommunicateable offence! There’s a bright side to all of this for me. This shows what kind of people is excluded from making critiques to Scientology and 21st century real science. Those excluded from making critiques are all the atheist matter-is-all-that-exists scientists in universities, exhibiting their degrees in the wall and running in their squirrel cages. This also excludes (and this is most satisfying) all the masters and doctors in all top universities who are not trained in physics and atomic and molecular phenomena! My advice for them is to get out of their squirrel cages and start walking a real path on those subjects, including civil engineering.”

 
——————–

Past is Prologue

1997: Roger Alexander summarized a news broadcast on the Fox network in which they interviewed Scientology PR Leisa Goodman. “The first subject was their treatment in Germany. She said it was terrible, that the church members are hounded, etc. They refuse to accept Scientology[tm] as a religion. Interviewer (not pushing throughout) asked her what was Scientology, a religion, a business or a cult. She said it is recognized throughout the world as a religion, and by I.R.S. Interviewer said: Wasn’t there some unusual things going on over 25 years, a war or smear campaign between Scn and I.R.S. he mentioned private investigators going into the personal lives of I.R.S. officials. Leisa said when people lie about you, you have to defend yourself. She said that people who attack the church usually have a hidden agenda and usually have a criminal background. She then launched into the church’s public spirited role in their controversy with the I.R.S. They had done informational campaigns, put forth a taxpayers bill of rights, and published a public service booklet. [I]nterviewer asked her how much money it cost to get involved in Scn. (Implication, not words, isn’t it a lot?) Here she appeared a little nervous. She debunked that quickly. She said you can spend $100 – $200. There are free services, (examples) Anyone can buy a book, started to expound on them. Interviewer cut her off Thank you Leisa Goodman.”

 
——————–

Random Howdy

“I rarely ever downvote comments. I do downvote rude comments and drive-by comments by Scientologists (or people pretending to be) who are too chicken to hang around and argue their beliefs. If a real Scientologist showed up here and seriously debated their beliefs with someone, I wouldn’t downvote them.”

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

Criminal prosecutions:
— Danny Masterson charged for raping three women: Mistrial declared November 30. Retrial scheduled, jury selection begins March 29. Next pretrial hearing: Feb 16.
— ‘Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’ (a/k/a Justin Craig), aggravated assault, plus drug charges: Grand jury indictments include charges from an assault while in custody. Next pretrial hearing Feb 13.
— Rizza Islam, Medi-Cal fraud: Trial scheduled for March 1 in Los Angeles
— David Gentile, GPB Capital, fraud: Next status conference Feb 13.

Civil litigation:
— Baxter, Baxter, and Paris v. Scientology, alleging labor trafficking: Complaint filed April 28 in Tampa federal court, Scientology moving to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed amended complaint on August 2. Hearing November 17 to argue the arbitration motions, awaiting ruling.
— Valerie Haney v. Scientology: Forced to ‘religious arbitration.’ Selection of arbitrators underway. Next court hearing: March 15, 2023.
— Chrissie Bixler et al. v. Scientology and Danny Masterson: Appellate court removes requirement of arbitration on January 19, case remanded back to Superior Court. Stay in place at least through February 7.
— Author Steve Cannane defamation trial: New trial ordered after appeals court overturned prior ruling.
— Chiropractors Steve Peyroux and Brent Detelich, stem cell fraud: Lawsuit filed by the FTC and state of Georgia in August, now in discovery phase.

 
——————–

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 BLACK OPS: Tom Cruise and dirty tricks. 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] How Danny Masterson’s criminal judge has iced out Scientology leader David Miscavige
[TWO years ago] Jokes aside, there is quite a bit of crossover between QAnon and Scientology
[THREE years ago] ‘PROTECT THE ORG’ is Scientology’s highest purpose says new edict
[FOUR years ago] Scientology ‘body-routing’: When no one wants what you’re selling
[FIVE years ago] Leah Remini on Scientology’s stalking — nothing is going to stop her third season of ‘Aftermath’
[SIX years ago] SCIENTOLOGY TV: It’s really happening! Spectrum blocks out a channel for Miscavige
[SEVEN years ago] Scientology pampered some of its big donors with a trip back in time to Phoenix in 1954
[EIGHT years ago] The crowd’s all here: What does the airing of the Scientology doc ‘Going Clear’ mean to you?
[NINE years ago] Scientology answers the Garcias — And turns over a trove of internal documents
[TEN years ago] Scientology’s Job One: Saving the Whales

 
——————–

——————–

Posted by Tony Ortega on March 29, 2023 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, 1995-2022 Just starting out here? We’ve picked out the most important stories we’ve covered here at the Underground Bunker (2012-2022), 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

 

Tony Ortega at The Daily Beast

 

Tony Ortega at Rolling Stone