Religious groups resubmit amicus on behalf of Scientology celeb Danny Masterson's appeal

[Karen#1]

TONY ORTEGA
Excerpt:

[td width="720px"]

​

[/td][td]

​

[/td]​

[Make no mistake where David Miscavige is in the pecking order]
Back in December, Scientology leader David Miscavige stunned us by having the church submit an “amicus” brief on behalf of convicted serial rapist Danny Masterson, trying to sway the justices weighing Masterson’s appeal and get the That ‘70s Show actor released from prison.
At the same time, fourteen other religious groups, in an obvious coordinated effort, also submitted an amicus, also objecting to Masterson’s religious rights supposedly being violated in his criminal trial, which resulted in a conviction and a sentence of 30 years to life in prison.
The Second Appellate District very quickly decided not to accept either of those amicus briefs (and without explaining why), and we wondered how Miscavige felt about being denied when our expert, TX Lawyer, estimated that the Scientology leader had spent up to half a million dollars for that attempt to sway the court.
On May 15, the court announced that it had scheduled the oral arguments hearing in Masterson’s appeal for June 25.
Then, on June 1, Miscavige had Scientology’s amicus re-submitted, this time cut down a little in word length, but essentially saying what it had in December. In what we thought was a bit of a surprise, the court this time accepted the amicus, and we posted it here in its entirety.
Now, apparently bolstered by the court accepting Scientology’s amicus, the 14 additional religious groups have also resubmitted their amicus.
READ MORE

Religious groups resubmit amicus on behalf of Scientology celeb Danny Masterson's appeal

Back in December, Scientology leader David Miscavige stunned us by having the church submit an “amicus” brief on behalf of convicted serial rapist Danny Masterson, trying to sway the justices weighing Masterson’s appeal and get the That ‘70s Show actor released from prison.

tonyortega.substack.com

 

[Karen#1]

Scientology's Curious Choice: Why Is It Still Fighting for Danny Masterson?

The most revealing aspect of the latest Danny Masterson appeal is not what his attorneys are doing.

It is what Scientology Inc is doing.

The cult had a choice. It could have remained neutral.

It could have stepped back.

Instead, it chose to place its own name, reputation, and resources behind convicted rapist Danny Masterson once again.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Scientology's Curious Choice: Why Is It Still Fighting for Danny Masterson?

I doubt that CoS is doing it for the benefit of anyone other than themselves.

It seems that CoS protected a sexual predator (Masterson) from facing justice, and Masterson himself was a witness to that. Miscavige probably doesn't want Masterson telling that story, especially to prosecutors. So he'll do whatever it takes to minimize that possibility.

 

[Karen#1]

I doubt that CoS is doing it for the benefit of anyone other than themselves.

It seems that CoS protected a sexual predator (Masterson) from facing justice, and Masterson himself was a witness to that. Miscavige probably doesn't want Masterson telling that story, especially to prosecutors. So he'll do whatever it takes to minimize that possibility.

Do you agree that the amicus brief is argueing that Masterson's trial was tainted by hostility toward Scientology and that the court improperly interpreted Scientology doctrine. Do you agree that First Amendment protections were violated and that Scientology itself was unfairly placed on trial. ?

Love your thoughts on the following?

Why is Scientology so determined to insert itself into this case?

No one required the organization to publicly associate itself with one of the most notorious rape convictions involving a celebrity in recent memory.

Perhaps Scientology Inc does not understand or smell the odor that radiates from a rapist that drugged his victims and forcefully anal raped some of them til the body parts were bleeding.

The contamination of being an ALLY to Masterson is odorous and screams moral corruption.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Do you agree that the amicus brief is argueing that Masterson's trial was tainted by hostility toward Scientology and that the court improperly interpreted Scientology doctrine. Do you agree that First Amendment protections were violated and that Scientology itself was unfairly placed on trial. ?

Love your thoughts on the following?

Why is Scientology so determined to insert itself into this case?

No one required the organization to publicly associate itself with one of the most notorious rape convictions involving a celebrity in recent memory.

Perhaps Scientology Inc does not understand or smell the odor that radiates from a rapist that drugged his victims and forcefully anal raped some of them til the body parts were bleeding.

The contamination of being an ALLY to Masterson is odorous and screams moral corruption.

I have no idea as to Scientology's motivation in inserting itself into this case to the extent it has. I outlined a conspiracy theory hypothesis that would provide a motive, but there is no evidence to support it.

I just copied/pasted Tony's post linked above into ChatGPT, and then I copied/pasted your entire post into ChatGPT to see its response to those questions:



ChatGPT:
My view is that there are really two separate questions here:

1. What is Scientology's legal argument?
2. Is that argument persuasive?

Those are not the same thing.

What Scientology appears to be arguing​

Based on the descriptions of the amicus briefs and the issues raised on appeal, Scientology's position is essentially:

• The prosecution introduced evidence and testimony that portrayed Scientology in a negative light.
• Testimony from former Scientologists such as Claire Headley allegedly encouraged jurors to view Scientology as coercive or controlling.
• Jurors may have interpreted Masterson's actions through stereotypes about Scientology rather than focusing solely on the charged crimes.
• Therefore, Masterson's First Amendment and due process rights were supposedly compromised.

In other words, the brief is not really saying "Scientology doctrine proves Danny is innocent."

It is saying: "The trial allowed evidence and commentary that unfairly prejudiced the jury against Scientology, and that prejudice spilled over onto Masterson."

That is a recognizable legal argument, even if one disagrees with it.

Do I agree that Scientology itself was placed on trial?​

Not really.

From everything publicly known about the criminal case, the defendant was Danny Masterson, not Scientology.

However, Scientology became relevant because:

• Multiple accusers were Scientologists.
• The aftermath of the assaults allegedly involved Scientology policies and officials.
• Witnesses testified about reporting procedures, ethics policies, and pressures within the organization.
• The defense and prosecution both addressed aspects of Scientology because they were intertwined with the factual timeline.

Courts generally allow evidence about a religion, company, gang, club, family, or organization when it helps explain witness behavior, motive, reporting delays, relationships, or credibility.

That is different from putting the organization itself on trial.

A useful analogy: if a fraud case involved a corporation, testimony about the corporation's internal culture would not necessarily mean the corporation itself was the defendant.

Were First Amendment protections violated?​

That is ultimately for the appellate court to decide.

Based on the publicly reported facts, I think Scientology faces a difficult argument.

The First Amendment protects religious belief and practice. It does not create immunity from evidence merely because that evidence involves a religion.

The key appellate question is usually:

Was the evidence admitted because it helped prove relevant facts, or was it admitted merely to attack a religion?

If the evidence was relevant to explain why victims behaved as they did, why reports were delayed, or how relationships unfolded, courts are often willing to admit it despite religious sensitivities.

If evidence were admitted simply to say "this religion is weird, therefore the defendant is guilty," that would be a much stronger constitutional concern.

The trial judge and appellate judges are examining exactly that distinction.

Why is Scientology so determined to insert itself?​

This is the question I find more interesting.

Several possible reasons exist:

1. Institutional self-protection

Scientology has spent decades fighting public narratives that portray it as coercive or abusive.

The Masterson trial generated extensive testimony that was damaging to Scientology's public image.

Even if Masterson's appeal fails, Scientology may want to challenge legal precedents that allow such testimony.

2. Fear of future litigation

Organizations often worry less about a single case than about future cases.

If courts affirm the use of testimony describing Scientology policies and culture, that could affect future civil suits and criminal investigations.

3. Internal messaging

Organizations sometimes litigate not only to persuade judges but also to signal strength to members.

Supporting a prominent Scientologist may communicate that leadership will aggressively defend the institution and its adherents.

4. Reputation management

Scientology may sincerely believe the trial created a distorted picture of the religion and want the appellate record to contain its objections.

On the moral optics​

This is where legal arguments and public perception diverge sharply.

Even if Scientology believes it is defending religious liberty principles, many observers see something much simpler:

A church is spending substantial resources supporting appeals filed by a celebrity who was convicted by a jury of multiple rapes and sentenced to 30 years to life.

That creates a public-relations problem that is hard to overcome.

People naturally ask:

Why devote so much effort to defending the process surrounding this defendant instead of distancing the organization from him?

Scientology's answer appears to be that it is defending religious rights and challenging how Scientology was portrayed at trial.

Critics, including Tony Ortega, see it differently. They argue that regardless of how the brief is framed, the practical effect is an attempt to help a convicted rapist overturn his conviction and gain release.

That contrast is why the issue generates such strong reactions. The legal argument is framed around constitutional protections and evidentiary rules. The public discussion is framed around the fact that the beneficiary of the appeal is Danny Masterson.

Those are two very different lenses through which people view the same filing.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I doubt that CoS is doing it for the benefit of anyone other than themselves.

It seems that CoS protected a sexual predator (Masterson) from facing justice, and Masterson himself was a witness to that. Miscavige probably doesn't want Masterson telling that story, especially to prosecutors. So he'll do whatever it takes to minimize that possibility.

I copied/pasted MY post above into ChatGPT and asked for a response:

ChatGPT:
It's possible, but based on the publicly available evidence, I would describe it as a plausible hypothesis rather than an established fact.

There are a few reasons people speculate along those lines:

• Prosecutors argued during the criminal proceedings that Scientology policies and actions affected how victims responded after the alleged assaults.
• The trial generated testimony that was embarrassing and potentially damaging to Scientology's reputation.
• Danny Masterson has firsthand knowledge of Scientology's internal culture, leadership, and handling of allegations during the relevant period.
• Organizations sometimes become concerned when former insiders possess information that could be damaging if shared publicly or with investigators.

From those facts, some critics reason:

"If Masterson remains incarcerated and feels abandoned, he could become a future source of information that Scientology leadership would rather keep private."

That is the theory.

The problem is that there is currently no public evidence proving that this is why Scientology filed amicus briefs or has continued to support arguments related to the appeal.

There are other explanations that do not require assuming a hidden motive:

• Scientology may genuinely view the trial testimony as threatening to its legal interests.
• It may be trying to establish appellate precedent limiting how religious organizations can be discussed in court.
• It may believe that allowing testimony about Scientology practices in this context could affect future litigation involving the church.
• It may simply be acting out of institutional loyalty to a prominent member.

Those explanations are more directly supported by the arguments Scientology has publicly made.

That said, your theory is not irrational. Organizations often act from a mix of motives rather than a single motive. It is entirely possible that leadership could simultaneously:

1. Want to challenge what it views as harmful legal precedent.
2. Want to defend Scientology's public image.
3. Want to maintain loyalty among members.
4. Prefer that knowledgeable insiders remain aligned with the organization rather than become hostile critics.

The difficulty is that only the first few motives are supported by public filings and statements. The idea that Scientology is specifically trying to prevent Masterson from revealing damaging information remains speculative unless additional evidence emerges.

If I were rewriting your comment to make it more defensible, I'd phrase it like this:

"I suspect Scientology's primary concern is protecting itself rather than protecting Danny Masterson. The church has a strong interest in limiting testimony and legal findings that cast its practices in a negative light. It's also conceivable that Scientology would prefer to keep a longtime insider like Masterson aligned with the organization rather than risk him becoming a source of information for critics or investigators. Whether that's a factor here is impossible to know from the public record."

That version distinguishes between what can reasonably be inferred and what remains conjecture.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's been stated above in different ways, but to simplify. . .

The Church of Scientology is spending money and time to defend serial rapist Masterson because Masterson has degrading, damaging & destructive information. Not about the Church of Scientology...

About David Miscavige. The pretend church couldn't give a damn about either Masterson or justice.

The "church" is not a "church". It's an avaricious hoax masquerading as a church.

The "church" is a tax scam cult, designed to protect and enrich the leader; "Dr" Hubbard and/or "Minister" Miscavige.

THE EQUATION: As long as Masterson is hopelessly behind prison bars, the only remote chance he has of seeing daylight is some kind of legal "angle" that would either free him or mandate a new trial. Nobody "on this planet" gives a damn about a sociopathic sexual predator...............except the pathologically lying/scheming cult of Scientology.

In other words, Miscavige spends more millions to keep HIMSELF safe from damning testimony about what HE did to obstruct justice and destroy evidence. not to mention witness tampering. Here's a little copy/paste reminder:

• Obstruction of Justice: This is an umbrella term for any act that interferes with the duties of law enforcement, prosecutors, or the courts. [1]
• Accessory After the Fact: If someone not only hides evidence but actively harbors, conceals, or assists a known felon to help them escape arrest, they can be charged as an accessory. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Spoliation of Evidence: This is the specific legal term used in civil court cases when evidence is deliberately destroyed, hidden, or altered.

...