Scientology wonders how it got such a bad name. Right...
Anyone who has ever attempted to get justice through what scientology calls their justice system will totally understand how amazingly convoluted it is. The most horrific part about it is that the abusers are the generally ones who are lionized while those they have abused are asked what they did wrong. That is the underlying theme in all of scientology justice. I know this first hand.
One very minor example of how scientologists are programmed was when my ex husband’s sister watched her brother brutally beat me and told her mother, a scientologist what had happened. The response was “well she must have done something to deserve it.”.
The fact that these women have made it to trial as a gargantuan accomplishment that cannot be understated. They had to overcome their scientology programming as well as battle a justice system and a wealthy defense. This significance will be overlooked by a majority of the people reporting on the trial, because it is incomprehensible that such an organization exists in their minds.
Thank goodness, he and it are in my distant past, The deal is, when you’re in scientology, this is normal behavior. It’s not until years after you’ve left that you can even wrap your brain around the fact that what happened was not acceptable.
Key to helping the Jurors understand the depth of why these women did not come forward sooner, is really getting them to understand how far Disconnection goes, the true effects of it.& The depth of the built in fear.
My guess is the attorneys for Danny will play on the girl's "foggy memory's". It's up to each one to describe, in detail, what their body's felt. That cannot be forgotten.
Danny.....stop running, man. There is no winning on this: YOU KNOW!
What would happen it Masterson was only convicted of one rape? Would that still go on his record or will their be any consequences other than public perception? Or will he just get off totally scott free?
Just my opinion, based on my reading of California statutes is:
A felony conviction will remain on his record for life, whether it be one or three.
The difference between one and three would possibly be the length of his sentence, not if he got a sentence. His sentence length would be determined by what he is convicted of plus the “enhancements”. So if he is convicted of a non-violent rape (is there even such an animal?), he could serve less time than if the violence enhancement is added.
There is also an upper, middle and lower tier of sentences for rape which is decided by mitigating factors such as vulnerability of the victim, amount of violence, etc.
I do not claim to be an expert on California law, but based on my reading of the statutes, if he is convicted of even one rape with no enhancements and no mitigating factors, he will have to serve at least three years in prison.
From what I have read, it appears that right now the prosecution is attempting to ensure there are enhancements and mitigating factors and the defense is preparing its appeals case.
Actually I believe it is in Case #3, it was explained due to the statute of limitations & time, Danny has to be found guilty in 2 of the 3 cases. You can read it yourself, but I'm pretty sure it said it has to be 2 out of 3, here in California.
For what it is worth, there might be High Crimes to hand out to everybody involved in this case:
HCOPL: Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists
…
Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.
Such suppressive acts include:
Any felony (such as murder, arson, etc.) against person or property.
Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology, such as a student or a preclear.
…
Falsifying records.
…
Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it.
Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology.
Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist, including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund, without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply.
…
It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.
…
Admitting a famous person or notable writer to higher-level processing who has not fully attained lower-level processing. This applies in particular to Power, Clearing Courses and OT Courses.
…
It is a high crime to permit suppressive and PTS people in Publications Orgs or departments or in Department 16C (Division 6A, advertising) as these will starve both the public and the org.
…
Any auditor seeing a rock slam on a preclear and failing to mark it down and report it is guilty of a high crime, as this injures society, the org and the person himself.
…
Additionally, a crime, if severe and of magnitude, harmful to many and committed repeatedly, can be reclassed as a high crime. (See HCO PL 7 Mar. 65RA III, OFFENSES AND PENALTIES, for those actions which classify as crimes.)
The detail that shocked me the most were those clueless staff who asserted that, because a romantic partner did the rape, it’s not rape, and it’s her “exchange” to take sex when he wants it.
My understanding is that it didn’t fit the same modus operandi as the other three cases. Thus the prosecution feels they have a better story to tell, with only three near-identical cases of drug rape.
Judge Olmedo ruled that it was too attenuated (not the same pattern). To some extent, she's smart because inappropriate admission of "prior bad acts" testimony is often a basis for reversal on appeal. It's the judge's discretion and I think she believes it might be going on to show he has a bad character, which is impermissible.
Scientology wonders how it got such a bad name. Right...
Anyone who has ever attempted to get justice through what scientology calls their justice system will totally understand how amazingly convoluted it is. The most horrific part about it is that the abusers are the generally ones who are lionized while those they have abused are asked what they did wrong. That is the underlying theme in all of scientology justice. I know this first hand.
One very minor example of how scientologists are programmed was when my ex husband’s sister watched her brother brutally beat me and told her mother, a scientologist what had happened. The response was “well she must have done something to deserve it.”.
The fact that these women have made it to trial as a gargantuan accomplishment that cannot be understated. They had to overcome their scientology programming as well as battle a justice system and a wealthy defense. This significance will be overlooked by a majority of the people reporting on the trial, because it is incomprehensible that such an organization exists in their minds.
Oh Val. I'm so sorry that happened to you :(
Thank goodness, he and it are in my distant past, The deal is, when you’re in scientology, this is normal behavior. It’s not until years after you’ve left that you can even wrap your brain around the fact that what happened was not acceptable.
Ditto!
Jezzz Val 😓
I'm so glad you are here watching. I bet it's a relief for you ❤️
In so many untold ways.
“past bad acts witness,” Just how many 'bad acts' has Danny Masterson done?
Thank you Tony!
Key to helping the Jurors understand the depth of why these women did not come forward sooner, is really getting them to understand how far Disconnection goes, the true effects of it.& The depth of the built in fear.
My guess is the attorneys for Danny will play on the girl's "foggy memory's". It's up to each one to describe, in detail, what their body's felt. That cannot be forgotten.
Danny.....stop running, man. There is no winning on this: YOU KNOW!
What would happen it Masterson was only convicted of one rape? Would that still go on his record or will their be any consequences other than public perception? Or will he just get off totally scott free?
Just my opinion, based on my reading of California statutes is:
A felony conviction will remain on his record for life, whether it be one or three.
The difference between one and three would possibly be the length of his sentence, not if he got a sentence. His sentence length would be determined by what he is convicted of plus the “enhancements”. So if he is convicted of a non-violent rape (is there even such an animal?), he could serve less time than if the violence enhancement is added.
There is also an upper, middle and lower tier of sentences for rape which is decided by mitigating factors such as vulnerability of the victim, amount of violence, etc.
I do not claim to be an expert on California law, but based on my reading of the statutes, if he is convicted of even one rape with no enhancements and no mitigating factors, he will have to serve at least three years in prison.
From what I have read, it appears that right now the prosecution is attempting to ensure there are enhancements and mitigating factors and the defense is preparing its appeals case.
Actually I believe it is in Case #3, it was explained due to the statute of limitations & time, Danny has to be found guilty in 2 of the 3 cases. You can read it yourself, but I'm pretty sure it said it has to be 2 out of 3, here in California.
Thanks for pointing that out, serves me right for skimming because I was in a hurry. Ugh.
Article claims that there is a statute of limitations issue in effect.
If there is only one conviction, then the crime is sufficiently old that it should be forgotten about, and the 15 year prison sentence doesn’t apply.
However 2+ convictions upgrades the punishment to a life sentence, which means the statute of limitations is no longer a defence.
Thus Masterson is Kubla Khan’ed for exactly one rape, but not two or three.
(My understanding of this is based purely on the text of the article)
For what it is worth, there might be High Crimes to hand out to everybody involved in this case:
HCOPL: Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists
…
Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.
Such suppressive acts include:
Any felony (such as murder, arson, etc.) against person or property.
Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology, such as a student or a preclear.
…
Falsifying records.
…
Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it.
Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology.
Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist, including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund, without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply.
…
It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.
…
Admitting a famous person or notable writer to higher-level processing who has not fully attained lower-level processing. This applies in particular to Power, Clearing Courses and OT Courses.
…
It is a high crime to permit suppressive and PTS people in Publications Orgs or departments or in Department 16C (Division 6A, advertising) as these will starve both the public and the org.
…
Any auditor seeing a rock slam on a preclear and failing to mark it down and report it is guilty of a high crime, as this injures society, the org and the person himself.
…
Additionally, a crime, if severe and of magnitude, harmful to many and committed repeatedly, can be reclassed as a high crime. (See HCO PL 7 Mar. 65RA III, OFFENSES AND PENALTIES, for those actions which classify as crimes.)
http://suppressiveperson.org/1965/12/23/hcopl-suppressive-acts-suppression-of-scientology-and-scientologists/
The detail that shocked me the most were those clueless staff who asserted that, because a romantic partner did the rape, it’s not rape, and it’s her “exchange” to take sex when he wants it.
I shudder to think what Laura Prepon and Mila Kunis have been through.
Since even the 1996 incident with the “prior bad acts” witness would not be time barred, why wasn’t it added to the case?
My understanding is that it didn’t fit the same modus operandi as the other three cases. Thus the prosecution feels they have a better story to tell, with only three near-identical cases of drug rape.
I could be wrong about this.
Judge Olmedo ruled that it was too attenuated (not the same pattern). To some extent, she's smart because inappropriate admission of "prior bad acts" testimony is often a basis for reversal on appeal. It's the judge's discretion and I think she believes it might be going on to show he has a bad character, which is impermissible.