After lunch session, Day 10 (Day 6 of testimony), Danny Masterson retrial
Just before we left the courtroom at the lunch break, Shawn Holley pointed out to Judge Olmedo that Leah Remini was in the audience, and she indicated that the defense has served a subpoena on Leah.
In the hallway, Holley was asked that meant Leah would be called as a witness, she gave a noncommittal, "we'll see."
Now, after lunch, Judge Olmedo comes in to see if anything needs to be done before we resume, and Deputy DA Ariel Anson says she has something.
Anson: I am aware that there is someone who has been reporting on the case, not here right now but sitting there every day. After we broke for lunch he confronted the priest...
Judge: He said ordained by the Methodist Church...
Anson: The man wearing a cross, my impression was the man wearing the cross was being very respectful but the other man was yelling and there were jurors around. And as I was walking one juror who shook her head as if she knew what had occurred in the hallway.
Judge: I am happy to admonish the jurors that they should not pay attention to anything said in the hallways. Ms. Holley?
Holley: That would be fine. It is my understanding that what the man yelled was that Scientology was involved.
Cohen: Our co-counsel Ms. Mangels was privy to the conversation
Mangels: I did overhear some yelling, about someone being a front for a quote "fucking cult," and it was said in front of the jurors.
Cohen: As I understand it, what Ms. Mangels heard, it was subsequent to that that Ms. Anson saw some of the jurors. And one or two of them and looked at her and shook their heads.
Judge Olmedo: She doesn't need you to put on the record what she said.
Cohen: What's important to note is that it's after what Ms. Mangels heard. And I am moving for a mistrial. When you combine these out-of-quote statements with what the jurors have heard over the last few days with this incident...
Judge: Let's make a distinction here, what the evidence has heard in the courtroom is evidence that the judge is allowing. That is not subject to a mistrial. This is about what was heard in the hallway after we had broken for lunch. How many jurors were even in the hallway?
Anson: I didn't count how many were around.
Judge: Just because someone has a juror badge doesn't mean it was one of our jurors. I find it hard to believe that they were all hanging out in the hallway when I had released them for the lunch break.
Holley: This happened just when we were leaving.
Judge: It couldn't be because I let the jurors go first.
Holley: I believe Det Brown witnessed this.
Judge: In the hallway elevator bank?
Mangels: No, in the hallway outside the security station. I saw three jurors from this case there, and I saw a deputy advising the man to quiet down.
Judge: I will bring the jury out here and ask them if they heard something. And if they raise their hands, I'll ask them.
Cohen: My request would be the court does an individual voir dire.
Judge: The court will do a voir dire of those who raise their hands. And an admonition to the audience and the people in the press row, if you do anything to affect our jury you will risk being excluded and losing your press badge.
Jury comes in.
Judge: Right after we broke for lunch, did you any of you hear overhear or see a disagreement. (Four raise their hands, one of them an alternate. She asks the jury to leave and will bring them back. Jurors in seats 1, 2, 4, 17 and 20.) Juror #1, please tell us what you heard or saw.
Juror 1: I saw a gentleman dressed like a priest and another gentleman having a heated conversation, talking to the priest in a loud voice. I heard something like, "you're here and you're against Scientology," and that's pretty much all I heard.
Judge: Is there anything what you heard that could in any way affect your ability to be fair to both sides.
No.
Could you still be objective and fair to both sides?
Yes.
And did you tell any other juror about that?
A gal at lunch, I said there was a scuffle or a heated argument in the hall.
What number was she?
Juror 2.
Thank you, ma'am. Send in Juror 2.
Hello, Juror #2. Did you hear or see anything after we broke for lunch?
I heard a man say "Scientology."
Did you hear in what context that was being said?
The word in a loud voice.
What were you doing?
I was waiting for the elevator and the door opened for the stairs.
Is there anything that you heard or saw that would influence you on either side?
No.
Did you convey what you heard or saw to anyone but Juror #1?
No.
OK, please send in Juror #4. Juror 4, did you hear or see anything?
Not at that time, but two of the sheriff's deputies were talking about it. Just that there was an altercation, I heard that Deputy Brown had to get in the middle of it.
Any idea of what the altercation was about?
No idea.
Can you still be fair to both sides?
Yes.
OK, you can send in Juror #17.
I heard a man's voice. You're here with someone who hates Scientology, and that's pretty much all I heard.
And you don't know who said that.
No, I don't.
Is there anything about what you heard that would impact either side
No.
Can you still be fair to both sides?
Yes.
OK, please send in Juror 20. Juror 20, can you please tell me what you heard or saw?
I was sitting closer to the courtroom, and this happened closer to security. I heard a man state, "she's a hate writer for Scientology and propagandist, and you're with her." He said that a second time, and deputies came. I saw the gentleman, but I didn't see the other two people.
Is there anything that would impact your ability to be fair here?
No. (She goes back in jury room.)
Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: In the context of the testimony that we heard, specifically about Ms. Podberesky this morning, which came across as attempting to intimidate a witness. What I find interesting is, it seemed like the yelling was coming from someone who is an anti-Scientologist, but Juror 1 viewed it as someone who is pro-Scientologist. And the concern is, based on what has been heard, it impacts how people take in information. From my perspective, the cleanest thing would be to start with a new jury. I appreciate what they've been said but I think it's difficult for someone to say no, I can't be fair anymore. I think the safest move would be to heard over.
Judge: People?
Mueller: Given what I've heard from the jurors, in fact they've indicated each that they can be fair and impartial, I think they can be. I think to start with a whole new jury at this point is a little bit unwarranted based on what happened in the hall. They don't know who these people are, Scientology really wasn't involved, just the mention of the word. I don't see how this is going to be fair and impartial.
Judge: The court is going to deny the request for a mistrial. I will note that only 5 out of 20 jurors heard anything. The court could always dismiss those five and we would still be fine. But the court is not going to even do that. These people heard Scientology and being against Scientology, but not one of them say they heard anything explicative about Scientology or the word cult. When they come in I will be reading to them some admonitions.
Holley: It's my understanding that Skip Larue is not a Scientologist, he was here for a religious group, he appeared in Freedom Magazine, a Scientology magazine, for testifying about religious freedom before Congress. the woman he was with was with a Scientology group, and they were confronted by the man in the green shirt.
Judge: Sir, will you identify yourself for the record?
My name is Aaron Smith-Levin.
Thank you for identifying yourself. Mr. Smith-Levin, please make sure you have no conversation with anyone regarding this case in front of any of the jurors.
Yes, your honor.
The hallways are small spaces, so the best way to proceed with caution is not to say anything on this floor.
(Judge Olmedo calls the jury back in.)
Judge: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to resume in a minute, and I know you've heard these instructions before, but I want you to hear them again. (She reads the separation admonition, about their verdict only being based on the evidence in the trial, etc.)
Continuation of direct examination of Jane Doe 1.
Mueller: Good afternoon.
Jane Doe 1: Good afternoon.
(Photo being shown. Two pictures we saw earlier of JD1 in a bikini with a drink and a waiter. The second photo is JD1 and her cousin Rachel in bikini with drinks.)
This is dated Apr 30, 2003. Same as the first one?
Like within minutes.
In Florida?
Correct.
Were there any injuries being shown on this picture.
As I sit here, I keep wanting to touch the screen, but it goes haywire if I do.
(Mueller brings her the printed photo. She puts on her glasses.) I don't see anything on this picture, it's so dark. I see my hand, the left hand, at the bottom, but I'm not sure.
The left hand at the bottom, the position you're holding it in (in an upturned fashion). What exactly got hurt in the left hand.
Right across here, it made it hard to grasp. This is where I first felt the pain in my body beyond my vagina. This hand was not very helpful on this trip. To make a fist was excrutiatingly painful.
The way you're holding the hand in the photo, did that have to do with the pain?
Yes, this was my injured hand.
When you were in Julian Swarz's office, did you have to prepare any kind of a report with regard to what happened on April 25?
Yes, more than one. First one was a report to my, called my pc folder. It was just me reporting to the case supervisor. What I'd experience, what I remembered, what I was saying to him, what I went through.
What was the other report?
That was later. Before that report I had to do an O/W report, and he assigned me the condition "confusion."
Were you confused about what had happened to you?
Not at all.
Did you do another report.
A Knowledge Report. After I went through the condition of confusion, he had me do that report. (She describes doing a confusion report that was rejected, and she had to keep doing it until Swarz accepted it and she did a Liability report. Mueller asked what was rejected, and she talks about doing it so that it met his approval.)
For these three reports you wrote for him, did you have to disclose facts related this this incident?
Yes. In the Confusion formulas you're talking about yourself only, it's not specified about what happened to me.
Internal documents?
Yes, they don't leave the organization.
What about the KR you wrote. Was that done in the presence of Julian Swarz?
Yes. It took multiple nights, we would start working on it after 10 pm each night.
As these reports are written, are they by hand?
One you do, the O/W, is handwritten. But the others are typed.
The Knowledge Report was in pieces over time?
Yes.
Were they typed?
Yes. It can be handwritten, but it is typed when it is presented. (She described a process of rewriting with his approval.) It can't open up with or at any point use the word "rape." I had to write it as though I was completely responsible for anything that had happened to me. Nothing happens to you that you did not create. That's a belief.
Did you initially use the word rape?
I didn't. He made it clear it wouldn't be in there. And I couldn't include anything criminal. There was part I wrote that I had wanted to shoot Mr. Masterson.
Why did you feel that way.
When I reached for the gun, that's how I felt. He told me that wasn't possible, that Mr. Masterson doesn't have a gun. If you write that you are going to shoot him, I can't help you.
If you were to write something in a report that they would consider not to be a fact would there be a consequence.
A False Report Report can lead to expulsion. It was pretty serious. He said it was being crafted for other people in the organization, to leave out anything that might be a legal truth. An "acceptable truth" is what they call it, something that doesn't bring the attention of law enforcement.
Mueller enters a three-page document as an exhibit. Shows it to her, she says it is in her handwriting.
Yes, I wrote this, with him. (Swarz)
Is this the final Knowledge Report?
It's missing the routing, it doesn't say who it is addressed to and who I sent it to.
Any idea why it's missing?
Because I got rid of it.
Why?
Because I was turning this over to the LAPD.
On page 3 there's a signature.
That's mine.
There's handwriting in the upper right corner?
That's the day I dropped it off at the Hollywood Celebrity Centre. I had written months before at the AO with Julian Swarz. I kept it at a need-to-know basis. This, in December 2003, is when I was summoned to the Celebrity Centre and dropped this off there.
When did you write this?
I believe June 2003.
The purpose of going over to CC was what?
I had been summoned to report to Miranda Scoggins for a punishment action. A committee of evidence, like a court martial, and told to bring any documentation.
Punishment for what?
For reporting that Mr. Masterson had raped me. My mother had written a document about it for the church. (She indicates that Swarz had wanted her to keep the KR between them.) There was an issue with my parents. They were big donors to the church, and when my mother had a problem she wrote directly to the church leader. (Obj, stricken.)
In this report, you do go through and provide some details with regard to the incident.
Correct.
In there you won't find the word rape. Is that because of the instruction from Swarz?
Absolutely.
What were you seeking from the Church of Scientology in regard to intervention or coming forward to them.
Guidance.
For what?
I wanted to report what he had eon, and so he didn't think that was OK. I wanted to know how I could go on. I couldn't go to my parents or my friends. I believed that Scientology that I had that had the solutions. That's how I was raised.
Were you instructed not to talk about it?
More than once?
And you told the consequences?
That started the first day from Swarz. and then when I dropped this off, I got a non-Enturbulation Order.
What's that?
It's on yellow paper, it had my name on the top, that a third party investigation has been conducted and we have found the source to be [Jane Doe 1]. And if we receive one more report that someone is upset, she will be expelled.
And what did that mean?
That I would lose everything. That my parents would have to choose between me and my daughter. And they would have to choose between me and their faith. And they believe it would be their eternity, many lifetimes. They would have to cut off me and my daughter. I don't have a job then, I don't have friends. I would have to reach out to, I don't know.
And if they didn’t?
Then they would be kicked out. and they had a lot of employees who were Scientologists.
When you were with Swarz, were you seeking any type of handling or counseling for Mr. Masterson?
That was the goal, and I had to be very careful about what I said. And that after I addressed my situation, then it could be passed along to him and it could be done in a way that wouldn't get me in trouble. And that's what Swarz said would happen.
Did you trust that they would handle Masterson?
I truly believe that was the only way to make a change.
Did Saaarz say that you would have some kind of handling?
Yes, I was on a very extensive program. it was interrogations for me, that I had to pay for. They were very intensive and very intense, to see if I had any evil intentions, if I had raped anyone myself in a previous lifetime. They have a policy that one accuses someone else of something they have done. I was really struggling with that concept that I must have raped someone. I was on a program for months, having to report daily. Interrogations, and could be about anything. Work habits, anything, not necessarily about what happened that night. It was just non-stop.
Did you comply?
Continuously. I really did think that would work. I did anything.
Did you lose, for any reason, all confidence that the church would properly conduct handling regarding Masterson?
Yes.
Did that create any fear or concern?
Well, after I read his reports and they said he didn't agree that it would constitute of rape, but he wasn't on a level to see it as rape and they said it could take years. When I said I really needed to report him. They wanted to do one more then. Kirsten Caetano from OSA arranged a meeting in a board room, and he would sit across the table and I could say what happened, that might make him see if it was rape. And I just asked that he say it was rape and say he was sorry.
Did you make any kind of request from the church seeking to go to law enforcement.
That was in April 2004.
Who did you make that request of?
I wrote a letter to the International Justice Chief, the head of a sort of paramilitary, they wear uniforms, Scientology has its own justice system.
Who was that?
Mr. Mike Ellis.
This is the person you would need to ask.
Everything you do has to be per policy. You can't write to the wrong person. For example writing to the leader of the church is frowned upon unless it had to do with his duty area. (She said she was hoping to point out a loophole to Ellis about being able to report Masterson.)
(Photo of Mike Ellis.) How did you reach out to Ellis?
Per policy I had to write him. I wrote him.
What did you ask him?
I made an appeal to him and I stated what had occurred to me. I told him what I was being put through, the steps I was going through. I asked him, why is Masterson still in good standing? The policy said a member in good standing, I can't report. I was hoping he would say that Masterson wasn't in good standing and so I could then report him.
(Mueller puts two-page letter into evidence.)
This is the letter.
It's dated April 13, 2004.
Yes.
It says IJC, is that International Justice Chief.
Yes.
"Can I press charges to the police without losing my friends and family..."
Judge Olmedo: Mr. Mueller, please don't read the document into the record.
Mueller: You're requesting to report him to law enforcement and file a civil suit.
Correct.
Why both?
That would be another way of finding out things that might help the criminal case, without saying more.
Did you get a response?
I did.
(Mueller puts a 1-page letter into the record.)
That's the letter I received back.
April 21, 2004, is that consistent?
It is.
In the second paragraph, it refers you to an "HCOPL."
That's the policy about suppressive acts, that you can't go to the police.
This particular citation, Suppressive Acts, when you saw that, what did that mean for you? What did you understand that to mean?
That and the last sentence makes it complete for me, that in the legal arena I have to apply Hubbard tech to any situation. And that policy is probably the scariest for any Scientologists. it's telling me I will be declared if I go to law enforcement.
How did you react when you got this letter?
I cried.
What did you do?
I went to my dad.
Did you disclose to him what happened on April 25?
I already had, some months before. But he wanted me to seek a handling in the religion. The letter to the IJC was his idea, so I showed him this and I said, I can't go.
That was in April 2004 when you told your dad?
Correct.
Is he still living today?
No.
When did he pass away.
2010.
What steps did you take when receiving this response.
Immediately, nothing.
Were you ever confronted by anyone with signing some type of non-disclosure agreement after reporting this to the church?
Yes. They started confronting me about in July, and the document was signed in September 2004.
When did that confronting begin?
After I reported to the police, in June 2004.
Where did you go?
I first went to Burbank PD, but they told me to go where it took place, they directed me to Hollywood/Wilcox division.
Did you go with someone?
I went alone.
(Mueller shows photo of LAPD Hollywood division.) Tell us about when you walked in.
Man at the counter in a uniform.
Do you know who it was?
An officer Schlagel. He was standing at the front desk.
What did you tell him?
I was there to report a rape. He asked, "For who?" For myself. He seemed confused. He said "hold on" and he left the desk.
What happened when he came back?
He asked me some basic questions and then asked if I wanted to come back and talk to a detective.
I said no, I want to do this right now. So he took a report hours later. He said he had spoken to a boss and that he could take a report himself. I was sitting in the lobby, stepping out for an occasional cigarette, and he was saying, can you come back later? I was able to speak with him, he was taking notes, there would be an interruption. Sometimes there was a phone and a computer, and other people at times.
Where were you when you were giving that statement.
At the front desk.
Were you ever taken into another room to give a statement?
Not that I remember.
And it was to this officer Schlagel?
Officer Schlagel.
You brought the Knowledge Report? Did you give it to him?
Absolutely. I thought I should take anything that showed I was not just randomly talking about something. I brought something written by Danny Masterson about that night.
Any photos?
I brought two.
The two we've seen from Florida?
Those are the two that I had.
Did you mention anything about the gun?
What did you say?
I said he had a gun but they said he doesn’t own a gun. "Who are they?" The people at the church. He then typed something in a computer and said, "They lied to you, he does own a gun."
How long did this last?
Could have been 10 o’clock, I was out of there before midnight.
So about an hour?
With interruptions, yes.
Did you give him names
He didn't even believe that I knew Masterson. He said, can anyone vouch for you. Could I provide someone who had been to dinner that night. I didn't know it was going to be like that.
Did you give him names?
Yes.
From the church?
Yes. Julian Swarz. I gave him the office phone number.
Any others?
No.
Any names you held back?
There were some.
Any church officials
Yes.
Who?
Mike Ellis. Angie LeClair part of the interrogations on both of us. Another gentleman I can't remember now. Kirsten Caetano, who had arranged the meeting. Shane Woodruff, who who took over from Julian there. Someone named Shirley, she was in charge of OSA in the West US. Lon Kleffler. There's more.
All of these people had some knowledge of what happened to you.
yes. I didn't give them the names of David Miscavige, he was the leader of the church, and you can't drag him into something like this...
Judge Olmedo calls for the afternoon break.
Want to help?
Got a few bucks to help your proprietor out with his expenses while he brings you in-depth reports from court?
Paypal payments can me made to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Underground Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik.
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 to 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
Have I mentioned how 🤬🤬 I am at these cult members who victim blame survivors, gaslight them, and protect serial rapists?
Hallway theatrics might make good YouTube fodder, but it endangers the proceedings. That said, Skip LaRue sounds like a porn name.