I heartily agree with the meme, 'the side that tells the best story' wins. If a few more 'bad actor' stories come out, Rapey will be getting a orange jump suit. Boil the clam, judge, I'll bring the hot sauce. Tony and friends watch your back when you get back to LA La land. Mustravage has a hard on for youse.
Regarding Judge Olmedo. My observation corresponds to what Tony brought up. The judge wants Justice and she has studied scientology enough to know that it is not what it claims. I think she sees right through the cherchs ability to game the judicial system with their high priced lawyers and PIs.
Yes, the Masterson prosecution needs to demonstrate that Scientology's viewpoint of the world is upside down compared to normal folks, and show how that manipulated the plaintiffs' conduct and memory at the time and until they "woke up." Maybe Claire Headley can have a few heart-to-hearts with the prosecutor before the trial, so he can understand that Jane Doe wrote her 2003 document for Scientology! Wow, what a show. Thanks for your clarity on this madness.
I think it is also important that the judge stated that evidence regarding Scientology does not violate the first amendment, in that it does not prevent Masterson from believing in LRH, scientology or the flying spaghetti monster, nor does it stop him from taking part in scientology training or counseling.
"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. 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.
I had a thought. Maybe DA Mueller didn't have a full grasp on how scn works. With the jury admitting they were not giving proper weight to scn, drugging, and memory, the prosecution appears to be at least in part at fault for the decision and lack of attention to important parts of the story.
I heartily agree with the meme, 'the side that tells the best story' wins. If a few more 'bad actor' stories come out, Rapey will be getting a orange jump suit. Boil the clam, judge, I'll bring the hot sauce. Tony and friends watch your back when you get back to LA La land. Mustravage has a hard on for youse.
Regarding Judge Olmedo. My observation corresponds to what Tony brought up. The judge wants Justice and she has studied scientology enough to know that it is not what it claims. I think she sees right through the cherchs ability to game the judicial system with their high priced lawyers and PIs.
Yes, the Masterson prosecution needs to demonstrate that Scientology's viewpoint of the world is upside down compared to normal folks, and show how that manipulated the plaintiffs' conduct and memory at the time and until they "woke up." Maybe Claire Headley can have a few heart-to-hearts with the prosecutor before the trial, so he can understand that Jane Doe wrote her 2003 document for Scientology! Wow, what a show. Thanks for your clarity on this madness.
I think it is also important that the judge stated that evidence regarding Scientology does not violate the first amendment, in that it does not prevent Masterson from believing in LRH, scientology or the flying spaghetti monster, nor does it stop him from taking part in scientology training or counseling.
"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. 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.
April 17th just wrote it on my calendar - I'll be reading everything as you put it out!
I had a thought. Maybe DA Mueller didn't have a full grasp on how scn works. With the jury admitting they were not giving proper weight to scn, drugging, and memory, the prosecution appears to be at least in part at fault for the decision and lack of attention to important parts of the story.
And... bring in DJ Donkeypunch!!!!