Last week, we told you that Haleigh Breest, the former publicist who is suing director Paul Haggis for allegedly raping her, filed a motion asking that the court not allow Haggis to bring up Scientology in their trial, which is scheduled to begin in New York on October 11.
“Breest denies that she has anything to do with Scientology, and she says no evidence has emerged tying her to it, so Haggis shouldn’t be able to bring it up at trial.”
No evidence has emerged. They specifically do not state no evidence exists. Dating back before Paulette Cooper, scientology has been willing to lie to destroy someone they consider an enemy. I do not know if this is the case here, but since they have had no compunction lying to federal officials, it would not surprise me to find a link.
“Breest denies that she has anything to do with Scientology, and she says no evidence has emerged tying her to it, so Haggis shouldn’t be able to bring it up at trial.”
No evidence has emerged. They specifically do not state no evidence exists. Dating back before Paulette Cooper, scientology has been willing to lie to destroy someone they consider an enemy. I do not know if this is the case here, but since they have had no compunction lying to federal officials, it would not surprise me to find a link.
Unless Haggis' lawyers can connect Haleigh Breest, the plaintiff, to $cientology, I don't see how any $cieno mention is relevant.
Based on the “if the jury believes her denials there is no harm” idea, there would presumably be no problem with having the Italian case brought up?