Discover more from The Underground Bunker
CROSS OF JANE DOE 1 BEGINS: Danny Masterson trial, end of day 6
[This report was produced live during a court hearing with a lot going on. There will be typos. Please don't email us about typos that you find. We are reporting live from an ongoing trial and we do not have time to make such corrections.]
Late afternoon session.
Did you notify Scientology that you were going to report to LAPD in 2004?
Yes, Mike Ellis, International Justice Chief.
Who is he?
He's in management and oversees all justice matters, including anyone declared suppressive. That is the only person you can talk to. I'm trying to translate, sorry.
That's all right. How did you notify him?
I wrote a letter to him.
I have a two-page document, 2004, to IJC. People's exhibit 18. I also have a one-page document, 2004, from IJC. People's exhibit 19. I would like to show you this, take a moment to look at that, and this too. Tell us if you recognize that.
Yes I do. (She says she recognizes the letter she wrote to Ellis.)
What was the request you made to him?
That I could report to law enforcement that Masterson had raped me and I would not be declared.
It indicates that you would like permission to file criminal charges without fear of losing all my friends and family who are Scientology. (He's reading from it.)
He puts it on the screen.
First paragraph describes 2003 incident. Second paragraph refers to her non-Enturb order. Third paragraph, going through some HCO sec checks. Was that related to coming forward to the church?
What is that?
I was required to report daily to a person at the Scientology facility. There would be a list of questions. I would hold the cans of an E-meter. The other person wouuld ask me questions from the list and change them slightly, almost like a confessional but more accusatory.
And this was how it was for you?
What was the purpose?
So I could get to my transgressions, so I could ascertain what my hidden evil purpose was against Scientology, Mr. Masterson, myself, my family, etcetera.
In the letter you indicate this was a rape, that it was violent.
And for you it was the most violent act of your life.
Page two, you go on to your request. Can I press charges against Mr. Masterson without losing contact with my family and friends. I am writing to you for help, can I press charges without fear of being declared?
You do acknowledge that it is ultimately up to you, but you were asking for permission.
Correct. I wasn't asking for direction.
Asks her about the second document.
That is the response I received from Mr. Ellis. (These were from April 2004.)
The response you got, what was your reaction.
I was upset.
Not only did he give me permission, I was hoping he could clarify if Danny was in good standing. Because if he was not in good standing, I wouldn't need permission.
Instead he pointed out I can't go to the police but turn to Hubbard technology. Those things meant a lot to me at the time.
The HCOPL he refers to?
That's the high crimes policy. (Judge cautions her.)
Were you familiar with this policy?
So what meaning did it have you?
That I could sue him civilly, but if I went to the police it would be a high crime. Scientologists can get permission to sue. I'd seen that. My understanding was you couldn't file for a divorce without receiving a response like this. But there is no cure for going to law enforcement. Civilly there's a cure, you need a letter like this. But criminally there's no permission, and I was hoping there would be something in this letter.
So, receivng this letter (in April), you knew the consequences, but you went to law enforcment anyway.
Did you know [Jane Doe 3] and [Jane Doe 2]?
I did not know Jane Doe 2. I think I met her for the first time in 2018. I spoke with her briefly in 2017.
And Jane Doe 3?
I met her as Mr. Masterson's girlfriend in, I think it was 1998. We didn't speak until 2016.
What was in 2016?
I was trying to reach her through mutual friends because she had tweeted something.
(Judge Olmedo said don't say what was in the tweet.)
Did you speak with her more than once? How often?
Initially we had one conversation, and she called me back soon after. Then we talked many times.
When you first spoke with her was there any mention of your incident?
You mentioned Jane Doe 2. When was that conversation.
I feel we spoke and I heard her voice for the first time in summer of 2017.
When you first spoke to her, was there conversation did you speak about your incident?
When we first spoke? No.
Did you have any fears about speaking her today?
What were your concerns?
I've broken that NDA about 50 times. I'm supposed to tell you that myself and Mr. Duncan had a disagrement and it's been resolved. And any mention otherwise is $200,000 per mention plus any loss to his reputation.
Do you have fear retaliation from anyone?
Half this courtroom.
And yet you're here testifying.
When did you file a lawsuit.
In 2019. Masterson named with Scientology for harassment and intimidation.
Were you experiencing those things?
With regard to that civil suit. Did that involve seeking money?
It was entirely about stopping the harassment?
I was suing for peace.
Mueller is done with Jane Doe 1.
Cohen: Ms [Jane Doe 1], my name is Mr. Cohen. We haven't met before. I represent Mr. Masterson. I'm not trying to trick you in anyway. I'm asking going to ask a lot of questions. If you don't understand any questions, please just ask me to rephrase or repeat it.
We've heard a lot today about the concerns you had about going to law enforcement, correct?
(She asks him to move so she can see her support person.)
What I want to talk about it, different than earlier. Regardless of your concerns, regardless of letters. In June of 2004, you actually do go to LAPD, correct?
In June of 2004 despite whatever happened I went to LAPD.
Whatever concern about consequences you had, you still chose to go to LAPD and report.
You understood that speaking to a police officer is a serious endeavor.
When you spoke to LAPD in June 2004, is it fair to say you wanted to be, from your perspective, to be as complete and accurate as you could be.
Did you lie to LAPD?
Is it your position that you didn't tell LAPD certain things.
Would it be fair the things you chose to tell LAPD were truthful.
Just to be clear there are omissions and comissions. (He explains it.)
You're using Scientology words.
No, I'm not. I'm using English vernacular. Under the law, there's a material misrepresentation, and there's a material omission. My question is, when you spoke to LAPD, would it be fair you did not misrepresent anything to them?
You did misrepresent things to them?
So you were not truthful?
I didn't tell them the whole truth.
If you told the LAPD something, is it your position that it was a true and accurate statement?
I understand it is your position you left out certain things.
I don't know that I was asked. I didn't volunteer. I protected some people.
What I'm asking is what you did tell LAPD. Whatever you told LAPD, it's your position you were being truthful in June 2004. The 2002 incident was about two years old, the 2003 incident was about 13 months old. You have a memory in general.
I think it's good.
I think you said something before that it's not like me to forget something.
If we compare now to June 2004, would it be fair to say your memory as to what happened in '02 and then '03 was certainly as fresh as it is today.
It was not as fresh mathematically speaking.
Not as fresh? My bad, the form of the question. Let me rephrase it, your memory then was better than it is today?
I would say it was the same.
If you said something in '04 and something today, would you say '04 was probably the better statement. (Obj, sustained.)
If you said something to LAPD in June 2004, and different than what you told us today, is it fair thta your memroy in Juen 2004 was probably not accurate.
Depending if Scientology was involved or not.
But when you went to LAPD that was your choice, right?
To the extend that there are differences in those statements that what you told LAPD in June 2004, from your perspective, would be the more accurate.
I'm not sure of a statement that I've made in 04. I know what I've said here, waht I said last year before your time, as far as 04, I haven't been shown a statement in my handwriting from then.
We'll get to all that. What I'm saying when you talked to LAPD in 04, that is different to what you said to the jury today, the 04 is more accurate?
[Asked and answered, move on, Olmedo says.]
I want to ask about the 2002 incident, that we talked about yesterday. It seemed like you have a pretty good detailed recollection of that September 2002 interaction.
Why you were out, what you drank, what you were wearing...
So your recollection of Sept 2002 is still very detailed. Correct?
And is it your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.
No, that's not the word I would use.
Is it your position that he did not rape you.
Is it your position there is some word betwen there?
You're the only person I'm going to be talkiong to today. Do you rememer the name Officer Shlegel. You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?
You were truthful about that?
To my understanding?
Again, I'm only interested in your point of view.
Then to my understanding, yes.
So in 2004 your position was that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?
[Asked and answered]
Has your opinion changed?
So in 2018, you come to the conclusion that in fact Masterson did in fact rape you in 2002.
End of day break.
Cohen: Before cross began, I asked to bring in a little more about the NDA. I was told no and I abided by that. But then she brought it up several times, and that there are some damages that she would have to pay if she violated it. My impression is that we were done with the NDA, then more comes in. I would like to be able to, for fairness, to allow parts of that agreement to come in. Not to allow two things. One or two brief questions. And to raise similar portions of that agreement to try and clear up for the jury, from the defense perspective, than just sign this and you can't say anything and we're done. In fairness there was a draft civil agreement presented first. The taste that the jury has been left with is so nefarious. And more importantly, inaccurate, to what the document is about.
Judge: The portions you are concerned about is what she is concerned about in testifying, and not the agreement terms itself. So I will draft a new admonition similar to Scientology. But as to your request, no. But I would ask that the two sides could talk so they could stipulate something that addresses both of your concerns.
Talk to each other this afternoon. It seems like the two parties still talk to each other at this point. Try to work with each other about some of the concerns. Obviously, I have not seen the settlement agreement. Both sides should be able to work out what can be brought in about it.
Cohen: I had raised an objection about the IJC letter. With respect to Scientology docuemnts.
Judge: My Oct 4 ruling was those two documents can come in. Other documents have to be brought up to me.
Cohen: I just wanted to make my objection known.
Judge: I understand.
Goldstein says some witnesses in violation of 402s. One is Shaun Fabos. And Marty Singer.
Judge: I've already ruled about fresh witness versus excited utterance. The two sides can stay and talk about those witnesses before tomorrow morning.
That's all until tomorrow.
Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:
Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history
Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea
Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time
Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology
Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning…