Tommy Davis accosted her in the street. Now Deb Rennard has another fight on her hands.

[Deborah Rennard and Tommy Davis]

One of the strangest things to come out of the Paul Haggis trial in New York last year was a scene that played out the day before closing arguments took place.

Haggis’s daughter Alissa and his ex-wife actress Deborah Rennard — who had both testified as witnesses in the trial — were accosted by former Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis, who confronted them on a Soho street corner not far from Haggis’s apartment.

Davis had apparently lost his temper after he was the subject of intense testimony in the trial which portrayed him digging up dirt on Haggis on behalf of the Church of Scientology.

We were told that Davis was animated and raised his voice, and that the two women were left shaken.

Although Rennard and Haggis had divorced in 2016, a year before former publicist Haleigh Breest filed her lawsuit alleging that Haggis had raped her, Rennard had been very vocal in her support of Haggis, and testified on his behalf as a character witness.

With the help of testimony by four other women who all testified that they had been assaulted by Haggis, Breest won her lawsuit and the Crash director was saddled with a $10 million settlement. He is appealing the decision.

In the meantime, Breest’s lawyers are aggressively going after Haggis’s assets in order to fulfill the judgment, which is not surprising. But now Deborah Rennard has come to court objecting that Breest’s legal team is also targeting her own funds and she’s not happy about it.

She’s objecting to a subpoena served on her in February which informed her that her assets would be restrained, including “any and all distributions of funds in your possession and/or control which you collected, as a recipient of alimony or under a divorce agreement or settlement.”

In response, Rennard has filed a lengthy affidavit explaining why her money is her own and should not be within Breest’s grasp, and also including detailed documents, including her 2016 divorce settlement.

In particular, Breest’s lawyers are complaining about a West Broadway property that Haggis sold in 2019 for $5.5 million, the proceeds of which were turned over to Rennard. Breest’s lawyers appear to be accusing the two of trying to hide Haggis’s assets as the litigation was ongoing.

In her affidavit, Rennard says that this accusation is based on bad information because the Breest legal team didn’t have a copy of the divorce settlement. She explains that when they divorced in 2016, their agreement included $20,000 a month in alimony, and that they expected to sell the West Broadway property (and another on Mercer Street) and split the proceeds. But by 2018, after Haggis had been sued and was unable to work, he was unable to continue the alimony payments. So they modified their agreement in 2019, this time granting her the proceeds in the sale of the West Broadway property in order to satisfy the payments she wasn’t receiving.

Any money she has at this point is her own and not Haggis’s, she says, and she’s asking the court to declare the subpoena invalid.

“My counsel and I made the foregoing clear to Plaintiff and her counsel, yet Plaintiff and her counsel still refuse to voluntarily lift the restraints, forcing me to incur legal fees and expenses, and aggravation, as a result of their unfounded position.”

On Monday, the Breest legal team fired back, saying that the 2019 modification — which came after the litigation had started — just looks suspicious.

In short, the circumstances surrounding the transfers of millions of dollars in assets from Haggis to Rennard that would otherwise be available to Breest to collect on her Judgment are far from ordinary, and raise the specter of potentially fraudulent conveyances.

Judge Sabrina Kraus issued an order on Tuesday setting dates for submissions on both sides and moving Rennard’s motion back to May 9. Rennard’s attorney yesterday pleaded with the court about what an imposition this is…

The length of the adjournment is highly prejudicial to Ms. Rennard. As explained in her moving papers, Plaintiff’s Restraining Notice does not restrain property in which the Judgment Debtor has an interest, but rather purports to restrain all spousal support (alimony) payments received by Ms. Rennard since January 1, 2016 (years before this action was filed)… This money is the primary source of Ms. Rennard’s income that she uses for her living expenses. A lengthy delay in determining Ms. Rennard’s motion would be highly prejudicial to Ms. Rennard and would cause her additional irreparable harm.

But later in the day Breest’s firm fired back that this was just a ploy to get Rennard out of a deposition.

Wow, that’s a lot of shots fired back and forth. We’ll keep an eye on the docket to see how Judge Sabrina Kraus rules on the matter.

---

Bonus items from our tipsters

Here’s the overview! 33 US Ideal Orgs done, two in progress (looks like Chicago and Austin) and nine to go! Can you name all nine?

---

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…