In March we told you that Deborah Rennard not only had to guard against an unhinged Tommy Davis, who accosted her in the street during the Paul Haggis-Haleigh Breest trial, but also that Breest had made accusations that Rennard was helping her ex-husband Haggis hide money.
Breest won her lawsuit against Haggis last year, which found him liable for raping the former publicist in a 2013 encounter, and which resulted in a $10 million judgment against the Crash director. But so far Breest has only been able to recover a tiny amount of that award — only some $41,000, according to this latest filing — and Breest is accusing Rennard of helping her ex-husband move a lot of money into her name before the trial so Breest couldn’t get her hands on it.
We previously published some of Rennard’s answers, but Breest has made even more ugly accusations, and so Rennard recently put another affidavit in the court file that we thought you’d find interesting. Rennard has been pushing for Judge Sabrina Kraus to make a decision about Breest’s move to tie up her funds, and she’s asked for a hearing for oral arguments.
DEBORAH RENNARD, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:
1. I submit this Affidavit, based on my personal knowledge, in reply to the opposition papers submitted by Plaintiff Haleigh Breest to my motion to: (i) vacate the Restraining Notice issued by Plaintiff and (ii) award costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and sanctions, against Plaintiff and her counsel for their improper issuance of the Restraining Notice.’
2. Ms. Breest spends significant time attacking me for being friendly with my ex-husband and insinuates without evidence that this relationship is somehow improper or wrong.
3. As I explained in my previous Affidavit in support of my Motion (and is explained in my testimony in this Court), Paul and I separated in 2010. At the time of my separation from Paul, our son, who was then 12 years old, was devastated. When Paul and I discussed our separation and subsequent divorce with our son, we determined that we would remain friendly with one another for our son’s sake, regardless of our divorce or any issues we had during our marriage.
4. Paul and I have remained friendly since that point. The negotiated resolution of our divorce, which resulted in the 2016 Divorce Judgment (attached as Exhibit F to my prior Affidavit Doc. NO. 1076) was as much for my son’s benefit as mine.
5. For instance, with respect to the two properties that have been discusses by Ms. Breest, after our separation in 2010, the West Broadway Property was where I lived and the Mercer Street Property was where Paul lived. Our son divided his time between those two homes.
6. Paul and I do spend time together with our son and respective families, including during holidays. There is nothing nefarious in my continuing a friendly relationship with my ex-husband. Ms. Breest’s attempt to use against me my decision to remain on friendly terms with Paul for the benefit of our child is offensive.
7. Paul and I also had a professional relationship that continued after our divorce. In addition to helping develop shows, I have also co-produced certain productions even after our divorce. In addition to raising our son, our collaborations professionally have required me and Paul to remain on friendly terms.
8. Beginning in 2018, Paul was spending increasing sums of money defending against this lawsuit. I do not have a specific recollection of the assets or accounts that Ms. Breest outlines in her opposition papers, but, at that time, Paul expressed concern to me that he would be unable to continue to pay the $20,000 in monthly spousal support payments, while continuing to pay his attorneys’ fees.
9. My family was obviously under strain at this point because of the situation Paul was facing with this case. My son suffered from anxiety and began seeing a therapist. By 2020, Paul had proposed selling the Mercer Street Property. Given the already fraught situation, I did not want my son to lose his home on Mercer Street so I decided to loan Paul $700,000 so that he would not have to sell the Mercer Street Property.
10. Ms. Breest seems to suggest that my loaning Paul this money somehow was an effort to deprive her of money. This makes no sense to me. As Ms. Breest points out, Paul has not been able to make any interest payments on this loan. I am essentially in the same position as Ms. Breest: Paul owes me money.
11. Separate from my loan to Paul, as I explained in my prior Affidavit, after Paul told me he would not be able to continue making his spousal support payments, I negotiated with Paul a modification of our Matrimonial Judgment. Paul and I were both assisted by our divorce counsel. Because Paul indicated he would not be able to continue paying the required monthly $20,000 spousal support, I agreed to exchange 10 years of these payments (around $2.4 million) for additional proceeds from the sale of the West Broadway Property (totaling $806,169.01) plus a $1 million lien on the Mercer Street Property. This was the consideration for the 2019 Modification Agreement.
12. I fully understood that I was giving up the right to around $593,830.99 in spousal support payments by agreeing to this deal, but the alternative was risking getting nothing at all because Paul had represented to me that he would have to stop making the payments altogether. This was a fair trade in light of Paul’s financial situation, and Ms. Breest’s own situation, having collected only $49,233.41 or her $10 million judgment, confirms as such.
13. Ms. Breest also claims that I helped Paul purchase a property in Portugal. I did not. Paul discussed the possibility of buying a property there so he and his children could work in Europe. As the email Ms. Breest’s counsel attaches shows, I did consider helping for the benefit of my son and step-children and I opened up a bank account in Portugal, depositing the $25.00 required to open the account. I ended up not pursuing anything further and the money was returned to me.
14. Paul and I do not have a “joint accountant.” I began using Joel Isaacson & Co., LLC as a financial advisor and recommended them to Paul, who had told me he was looking for a new financial advisor. Our accounts and financial interests remain separate.
15. Paul does not use a bank with an ATM in New York. As Ms. Breest’s counsel explains, he has, in the past, occasionally transferred money to my account temporarily and asked me to bring it to him, so that he can withdraw his own money. I have no access to Paul’s money and I don’t keep money for him in my separate accounts. He is my son’s father and I have simply assisted him in withdrawing his own money for household expenses.
16. Finally, Ms. Breest and her counsel submit affidavits describing an incident that occurred in the courthouse during trial. At the time I saw Ms. Breest, I had just been approached by a reporter who sought to ask me questions about Scientology. Paul was not present — I believe he was in the restroom. I was very upset and I did yell at Ms. Breest out of frustration, something that I regret doing and apologize for. I stated that Ms. Breest had bankrupted Paul not that she had bankrupted “us.”
17. Ms. Breest is entitled to pursue collection of her judgment. If she wishes to allege that Paul and I entered into some scheme to defraud her, she should be required to prove her case in a court of law like everyone else. Her efforts to take my money, in which Paul does not have an interest, without a chance to defend myself, is unfair. I respectfully request that the Court grant my motion.
— Deborah Rennard
Danny Masterson jury: Is today the day?
By our account, since Friday morning’s video playback and then a question just before the lunch break, the jury in the Danny Masterson retrial has deliberated for a full two days (Friday afternoon, Monday, Tuesday afternoon) without a request of any kind.
We know you’re frustrated that it’s taking the jury this long, but we can’t help think that this lack of questions might suggest this panel is actually making some progress.
Could we get some verdicts from them today? We’re slightly more optimistic about that than we have been in a while.
We’ll be in the courtroom, so keep an eye on our Twitter account (@tonyortega94) and your inbox for our Substack reports!
Want to help?
You can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail).
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
Here’s the link for today’s post at tonyortega.org
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.
Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
Last weekend I was at my great grandson’s baseball game. His father, Nick was one of the coaches of the game. His mother is married to my grandson, Austin who was not one of the coaches of the game. There was nothing nefarious at all in the fact that both his parents and their new spouses attended his game because that’s how good co parenting works. We put aside the differences for the sake of the children. I do not know, nor do I care about the financial details of my grandson’s wife’s divorce. I care about her and her children.
I’m not aware that Breest has children so she may not understand co parenting or divorce settlements. It’s amazing how much of life is spent being accused or accusing. Is human nature truly that vile?
Thank you for the updates, Tony.