The Danny Masterson Trial thread

[PirateAndBum]

I know, I'm getting into paranoid conspiracy "omfg it is all rigged" mindset. But you have to agree... it is a GIANT coincidence that one of Chris's viewers happens to have a dad who was not only in the jury pool, but who ended up being the jury foreman. That's so statistically improbable...

Your analysis seems contradictory. If his daughter was a fan of Shelton's then any influence would work against Danny's case not the other way round.

I'd say it was coincidence. Tampering with a jury is a dangerous undertaking. Co$ is getting bad press no matter the outcome. Saving Danny's ass doesn't do much to help their cause. What you are proposing - that multiple jurors were involved - is really pushing it. Even in mob related cases it only takes one juror to put a wrench in the gears.

 

[Karakorum]

Your analysis seems contradictory. If his daughter was a fan of Shelton's then any influence would work against Danny's case not the other way round.

Well, we do know the foreman filed an affidavit in favor of the defense, Which none of the other jurors did, We also know on the interview he was quite clearly saying that the "acquit" camp was the more thorough and fact-based than the "guilty" camp.

So... if the daughter of an "acquit!" foreman happens to be a fan of Chris Shelton and she helps organizse an interview during which the foreman expresses his pro-Masterson view and states that no jury would likely find him guilty. Then said interview is used as part of the defence's motion to dismiss the case...
You see where I'm going? It is such a mass of coincidences that it makes me question if she was a real fan.

Told you, maybe I'm being paranoid but what if:
1. The Daughter was a 'plant' monitoring C.Shelton's vids for you-know-who
2. The dad was a plant in a rigged jury selection process.
3. Then they use both of them to trick Tony&Chris into doing this interview, so that the motion to dismiss the case gains more traction.

I'm not saying the above is true. I'm just saying it is not that impossible. Because either the above somewhat-paranoid interpretation is true, or there is a MASSIVE coincidence that the Masterson Jury foreman happened to have a daughter who happened to be a fan of Chris who has something like 1000 views worldwide under most of his vids

So one of these 1000 people from the whole world not only happened to live in LA, but happened to be the daughter of not just some jury member but the jury foreman. If it is a coincidence, then it is a giant coincidence, I think we both agree on that.

I'd say it was coincidence. Tampering with a jury is a dangerous undertaking. Co$ is getting bad press no matter the outcome.

So is infiltrating the IRS and the FBI. And we know they did it anyway.
Maybe it is just our different backgrounds at play here, but I seem to have far less trust in the American justice system than you.

What you are proposing - that multiple jurors were involved - is really pushing it. Even in mob related cases it only takes one juror to put a wrench in the gears.

I agree here. It is a paranoid long shot.
But I was of the mindset "case closed, nothing to see here" before this interview came up. Now I'm thinking that something stinks here. Just a matter of how much it stinks. At this point I think rigging the jury starts to look at least remotely possible.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I see what you are saying. I have no data so I won't engage. We do know now that whatever the case may be, there will be a new trial.

 

[Lee #28]

Some new info....^^^^^ some discussed above?

Aaron...going off....pissed at Ortega and Chris......on recent allegations....

Does seem a great piece of investigation to find out this info about the Jury Foreman....

Who wouldn't think that Scientology hasn't or wouldn't try by whatever means possible to influence things in the trial....

Anyway....basically Jury Foreman lied ....

 

[Karakorum]

I think none of us have the solid information to know for sure. We have some suspicions and some facts that make these suspicions stronger, but the facts that we have are not sufficient to be sure if scientology rigged the jury selection process or not.

They are also not sufficient to be sure if Earl and his daughter work for scientology. If they do, it is not clear that they know who exactly they work for. OSA loves to create front companies and various shells to do their work for them. It is possible Earl's daughter thinks she is working for Masterson's defence team and genuinely believes that she's not working for OSA.

Either wya, the old jury is old news. Big question is: Will scientology rig the jury in the new trial.

 

[Karakorum]

Ok, seems yesterday's testimony went in favor of the prosecution.

I'm still a bit worried about the outcome. The reasons are simple, Danny has home field advantage:

- This is a Hollywood actor's trial in LA.
- I'm still not so sure if scientology didn't plant one of the jurors or did not find a way to pay off a legitimate random juror off.
- All it takes is one jury member to go "not guilty!" and the whole thing is a mistrial yet again.

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Some new info....^^^^^ some discussed above?

Aaron...going off....pissed at Ortega and Chris......on recent allegations....

Does seem a great piece of investigation to find out this info about the Jury Foreman....

Who wouldn't think that Scientology hasn't or wouldn't try by whatever means possible to influence things in the trial....

Anyway....basically Jury Foreman lied ....

Legal battle for the ages to unfold this morning at the Danny Masterson retrial

TONY ORTEGA MAY 12

In this morning's piece by Tony, he alludes to Aaron, but interestingly enough fails to address the relevant point he brought up.

Aaron discusses that Tony published Kathleen's story without permission from her, didn't disclose he was going to publish it,and refused to take it down when asked. At no point does Tony deny that allegation but rather, he addresses Aaron's Lisa Marie Presley claim.

"Now we’re being accused once again of “secretly taping” an interview subject, this time a trial witness for a 2021 article at the Underground Bunker, a strange echo of that previous accusation.

Again, we don’t tape phone interviews, and certainly not without the other person’s knowledge. We just type out notes. We type fairly fast, after all.

We really prefer not to address the online attacks aimed our way, and we’ll do our best to ignore them in the future."


Mimsey

 

[Reyne Mayer]

Aaron discusses that Tony published Kathleen's story without permission from her, didn't disclose he was going to publish it,and refused to take it down when asked. At no point does Tony deny that allegation but rather, he addresses Aaron's Lisa Marie Presley claim.

We answered a bizarre attack on us in today's post. But we are under subpoena and so we have to hold off on other details for now.

Legal battle for the ages to unfold this morning at the Danny Masterson retrial | The Underground Bunker

tonyortega.org

i think i've seen him answer in the past, that Kathleen knew that in talking to a journalist their conversation would be reported (what else could she have expected, from someone known for daily columns about the CoS?). there may be further details about just how she consented -- but we'll have to wait for Tony, who's in court right now and possibly even trying to fight off what may be an attempt by the CoS at legal harassment, to find time to respond.

and once something's been put on the internet, isn't it essentially 'in the wild'? so isn't it almost worse in a way for the original -- and professional -- source to take it down, so that for example when it gets quoted or even mis-quoted elsewhere, there's not a way to go back, fact check and see the full context?

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Legal battle for the ages to unfold this morning at the Danny Masterson retrial | The Underground Bunker

tonyortega.org

i think i've seen him answer in the past, that Kathleen knew that in talking to a journalist their conversation would be reported (what else could she have expected, from someone known for daily columns about the CoS?). there may be further details about just how she consented -- but we'll have to wait for Tony, who's in court right now and possibly even trying to fight off what may be an attempt by the CoS at legal harassment, to find time to respond.

and once something's been put on the internet, isn't it essentially 'in the wild'? so isn't it almost worse in a way for the original -- and professional -- source to take it down, so that for example when it gets quoted or even mis-quoted elsewhere, there's not a way to go back, fact check and see the full context?

Tony has yet to respond about whether he had permission or not, and won't until after a verdict has been served. He had his lawyer tell the court he would not testify in response to the subpoena. The attorneys instead wrote a stipulation which they gave to the jury.

Public figures have no slander / libel protection. Everybody else does. How posting something on twitter or other social media affects that is a good question. Aaron's bitch with Tony is that he doesn't ask permission, he interviews people and posts the interview. It is bad form in Aaron's mind, but in Tony's, it's legal. See below:

Mimsey

Donna Halper
Professor, historian, former journalist & broadcaster. Author has 4.8K answers and 8.9M answer views3y
Yes and no. If you are referring to something you wrote and published, it is considered plagiarism for anyone, journalist or otherwise, to reprint it without your permission, or without crediting you. But if you were interviewed by a journalist and you wished he or she wouldn’t publish your story (as in, the story about your life or what you were doing), that’s different: unless the two of you had agreed that what you were saying was “off the record,” the journalist absolutely is allowed to publish it.

*****

Since social media platforms are private entities, they are legally able to censor what their users post. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it still allows individuals who publish those false statements to be sued for defamation.

How to Deal With Social Media Defamation & Libel - Minc Law

Social media defamation refers to a libelous or slanderous statement published on a social media platform. Learn how to handle social media defamation.

www.minclaw.com

.

 

[Karakorum]

Despite Aaron's estimates, I actually feel Cohen was doing a very good job faced with a very difficult task. Thus I'm not too optimistic, I feel like Danny is gonna walk again.

Also my faith in the jury system remains low as always.

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Despite Aaron's estimates, I actually feel Cohen was doing a very good job faced with a very difficult task. Thus I'm not too optimistic, I feel like Danny is gonna walk again.

Also my faith in the jury system remains low as always.

I think they will go one one or two. The interesting part of this is the Jane Doe's mom refusing to testify on her daughter's behalf. That goes to show how far immersed in scientology's belief system she has gone. While I get - the core justifier is we are immortal beings, and also we are responsible for our own conditions, and she must have pulled it in, to not stand up for your own daughter, because it will get you in trouble with your church? Ahhh - nah I don't think so.

It's also the other Jane Doe who testified in the first trial, refusing to participate in this one, wasn't thrilling news - having 5 people testifying is stronger than 4.

Mimsey

 

[onceuponatime]

I think the prosecution put on a stronger case, but it's still a hard conviction to get. I also think Cohen did a good job, maybe not quite as well as the first time around but that was more about the prosecution fixing some of their mistakes.

 

[Karakorum]

That goes to show how far immersed in scientology's belief system she has gone. While I get - the core justifier is we are immortal beings, and also we are responsible for our own conditions, and she must have pulled it in, to not stand up for your own daughter, because it will get you in trouble with your church? Ahhh - nah I don't think so.

I do not know that much about her mum personally, but if she was inside scn long enough then she would be subjected to the same mental training and pressure as staff. "do not be counter intention", "don't be off-source", put your f-ing ethics in, put your 3d ahead of your 2d, what-would-ron-do, do not act in a counter-survival way...

And if scientology argumentation and guilt-tripping does not work, then there's always the handy-dandy threat of losing your friends, co-workers, job, family, eternity and whatnot.

 

[Karakorum]

 

[mimsey borogrove]

I do not know that much about her mum personally, but if she was inside scn long enough then she would be subjected to the same mental training and pressure as staff. "do not be counter intention", "don't be off-source", put your f-ing ethics in, put your 3d ahead of your 2d, what-would-ron-do, do not act in a counter-survival way...

And if scientology argumentation and guilt-tripping does not work, then there's always the handy-dandy threat of losing your friends, co-workers, job, family, eternity and whatnot.

Reading her report to RTC, it's obvious she's bought into it. Aaron's post about the mom's letter shows how flawed the system is. Unconscious sodomy is not rape? Well, that's California for you. I can understand not admitting her letter unless she's willing to take the stand, and respond to questioning about it. I can understand the mom not defending her daughter based on her beliefs.

The logic of protecting an OL and letting him continue to commit serial rapes, is astounding, but then, it was per policy, nutty as that sounds. Reading those policies on course made sense, until I was on the receiving end of them, then I saw how far off the wall they are.



Mimsey

 

[Karakorum]

Unconscious sodomy is not rape? Well, that's California for you.

Sorry couldn't help it.

The logic of protecting an OL and letting him continue to commit serial rapes, is astounding, but then, it was per policy, nutty as that sounds. Reading those policies on course made sense, until I was on the receiving end of them, then I saw how far off the wall they are.

Speaking more seriously, even with Ron's zany policy, it is a really counterproductive way of going about it. CC has always been the wild west with celebs getting away with things and cases related to celebrities were NEVER sent to the continentals, instead I'm 100% sure that an escalated case was being handled by either OSA or by some special int task unit.

That's my guess what happened here:
This got sent to Julian (who is not the best or brightest ethics guy out there) - probably because he is considered extremely safe and obedient and the OSA go-to-guy. Then Julian's already lackluster way of doing things was further hampered by backseat drivers from OSA or int or even direct orders from you-know-who.
It gives an impression (to use a metaphor) of three different people trying to fly the plane with no CRM whatsoever and each making conflicting inputs.

Even if we take the position that the intention was to defend the CoS PR image at the cost of the victims, it is obvious that they did a piss-poor job at it. Now they have to face the music together with Danny and have only themselves to blame.

If David Cohen manages to save them from this self-induced tailspin, then Davey should give him a medal.



... having said all of that, it is a Hollywood actor's trial in LA and Cohen appears to be a quite competent lawyer. So Danny still has a decent chance of walking imho.

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Sorry couldn't help it.


Speaking more seriously, even with Ron's zany policy, it is a really counterproductive way of going about it. CC has always been the wild west with celebs getting away with things and cases related to celebrities were NEVER sent to the continentals, instead I'm 100% sure that an escalated case was being handled by either OSA or by some special int task unit.

That's my guess what happened here:
This got sent to Julian (who is not the best or brightest ethics guy out there) - probably because he is considered extremely safe and obedient and the OSA go-to-guy. Then Julian's already lackluster way of doing things was further hampered by backseat drivers from OSA or int or even direct orders from you-know-who.
It gives an impression (to use a metaphor) of three different people trying to fly the plane with no CRM whatsoever and each making conflicting inputs.

Even if we take the position that the intention was to defend the CoS PR image at the cost of the victims, it is obvious that they did a piss-poor job at it. Now they have to face the music together with Danny and have only themselves to blame.

If David Cohen manages to save them from this self-induced tailspin, then Davey should give him a medal.



... having said all of that, it is a Hollywood actor's trial in LA and Cohen appears to be a quite competent lawyer. So Danny still has a decent chance of walking imho.

Philip Cohen. Here's David Cohen:




Here's Philip Cohen:

 

[Karakorum]

Philip Cohen. Here's David Cohen:

I think I was thinking of Miscavige. Everyone around him turns into a David at some point.

 

[vegan3]

The charge is forcible rape which was explained perfectly by Aaron and pathetically by Tony.

 

[Karakorum]

The charge is forcible rape which was explained perfectly by Aaron and pathetically by Tony.

It is kind of both tragic and hilarious that this trial is allowed to go on only because Danny failed at drugging these girls properly. If he would have gotten the dose correctly to knock them out cold, the state of California would be perfectly fine with him because it would be past the statute of limitations for simple rape (as opposed o forcible rape).

Something is really messed up with the legal logic there. Just sayin'