Sky Daily ... In trouble?

[Lee #28]

Well according to some Facebook posts I've looked at, Hayden Hitt graduated High School in 2023.

Which contradicts what Sky Daily stated in her video....

I believe this is the school he graduated from..... So it is a Licensed by Applied Scholastics International....school.

The parent ownership is ABLE....which is run by the Sea Org. They have a 100 acre campus in Missouri...

The Association for Better Learning and Education International.....

So....I would imagine that those licensing fees go directly to Scientology Sea Org coffers through a few vias.....

 

[Lee #28]

Alright.....

Now someone explain the Elipsis in the title please....as far a legal ramifications....

Just joking.....

 

[Type4_PTS]

Alright.....

Now someone explain the Elipsis in the title please....as far a legal ramifications....

Just joking.....

ChatGPT Says:
I did an e-meter check on the title. The three dots were clean, but “charges” got a long fall.

 

[TheSneakster]

Well according to some Facebook posts I've looked at,

Using social media posts for Real World(tm) facts again. Just like you did with the false rape charges claim.

I believe [emphasis added] this is the school he graduated from.....

So you don't actually know what school Hayden Hitt graduated from and are just guessing.

 

[TheSneakster]

Your wording “can be opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit” is appropriately measured. Florida recognizes defamation by implication, so the impression a publication creates can matter even when it doesn’t explicitly say “prosecutors charged her.” You’re identifying a risk, without claiming that this particular title establishes liability.

This, in turn, causes a risk of legal entanglement to these forums as the plaintiffs in a defamation suit naming the OP poster and possibly others will almost certainly (during discovery) subpoena the owner/operators of this forum to disclose the real world identity and contact information for OP and possibly other members of this board. If that happens and the C of $ OSA is, in fact, supporting Sky Daily behind the scenes, they will attempt to obtain the Real World(tm) membership data for the entire board.

Those of you who scoff at this notion should consider what happened to Michelle "Emma" Sterling (owner/operator of the original ESMB) back in November 2010 (link). She was arrested and all of her computers were confiscated for "forensic examination" by Australian police . OSA used a false pretext of claiming she was a participant in (fake ?) DDOS attacks on C of $ websites. I'm sure it was trivial for them to thereby obtain (from Australian law enforcement assets) the admin access to the original ESMB server and all the personal contact information of members Emma had from her Facebook direct messages and her emails.

That (among other considerations) is why I am being so emphatic about this matter.

Edit addition: added Link to 2013 Tony Ortega about what happened to Emma in November 2010.

 

[Lee #28]

New video....

Some really good stuff..... "opinions"

 

[Isaac]

Sneakster: A Lecture on Accuracy, Hypocrisy, and Your Sudden Interest in My Posting History

Sneakster seems to have appointed himself the official guardian of accuracy whenever the subject of Sky Daily and the rape allegations comes up. His repeated insistence that Sky Daily hasn’t been criminally charged is technically correct. But apparently, he believes that repeating this fact often enough somehow makes the underlying allegations disappear.

Let’s establish something right from the beginning.

Nobody is saying that Sky Daily has been criminally charged with rape. Nobody is claiming that the allegations have been proven in a criminal court. And nobody is suggesting that an allegation automatically establishes guilt.

But there is a rather important distinction Sneakster seems determined to ignore: reporting allegations of rape is not the same thing as claiming someone has been criminally charged with rape.

There have been civil lawsuits involving allegations of sexual assault, and multiple news organizations have reported on the matter. The word RAPE has appeared prominently in the headlines of several of those reports.

This isn’t something Lee invented. It isn’t an imaginary story. And it certainly isn’t something that becomes unworthy of discussion simply because criminal charges haven’t been filed.

Lee acknowledged that his original thread title could have been worded more carefully. He even apologized and invited it to be changed. That’s a perfectly reasonable response.

But Sneakster wasn’t satisfied with correcting a potentially misleading headline. He went considerably further, accusing Lee of deliberately spreading defamatory lies and comparing his behavior to Scientology’s OSA PR tactics.

That’s quite an escalation.

If accuracy was genuinely his only concern, a simple clarification would have accomplished the objective. Instead, he seemed much more interested in questioning Lee’s motives and portraying the discussion itself as some kind of malicious campaign.

And that’s where his argument starts to become rather questionable.

The allegations are newsworthy. The civil litigation is newsworthy. The involvement of people connected to Scientology is newsworthy. The circumstances described in the reporting are newsworthy.

Nobody is obligated to ignore a serious news story until a prosecutor decides whether to pursue criminal charges.

Now let’s talk about Sneakster’s conduct toward me.

Apparently, his obsession with this disagreement wasn’t confined to Lee’s thread.

On an entirely unrelated thread, Sneakster decided to go digging through my posting history, pulled out a post from nearly five years ago, and started leaving negative reactions and hostile comments.

When I told him to fuck off with a middle-finger emoji … he then proceeded to construct an elaborate explanation about how my response was supposedly retaliation for his criticism of me on the Sky Daily thread.

He even added further commentary about my posting history, questioning how I could supposedly have thousands of messages that weren’t appearing in the XenForo search index.

Really?

For someone who repeatedly lectures others about accuracy, Sneakster seems remarkably comfortable speculating about other people’s motives and drawing conclusions from information he apparently doesn’t fully understand.

Let’s look at the double standard here.

Sneakster can pursue someone into unrelated discussions, dig through years-old posts, leave hostile reactions, question their motives, and scrutinize their posting history.

But when that person responds negatively, suddenly it’s a calculated personal attack and an act of retaliation.

Apparently, the rules of civility only apply when someone disagrees with Sneakster.

And here’s the irony: he accuses others of behaving like Scientology’s OSA while displaying the very sort of aggressive, personal, and distracting behavior that does absolutely nothing to advance an intelligent discussion.

I don’t need to prove Sneakster has some hidden agenda, nor am I claiming he has any particular affiliation. His behavior speaks for itself.

So here’s my position, without any ambiguity:

I am not declaring Sky Daily guilty of anything. I am not claiming criminal charges have been filed. I am not presenting allegations as established facts.

I am saying that serious allegations have been reported, civil litigation exists, and people have every right to discuss the matter.

The absence of criminal charges does not erase the allegations, invalidate the civil lawsuits, or make the news coverage illegitimate.

And Sneakster’s repeated attempts to turn a discussion about those allegations into an attack on the credibility and motives of the people discussing them are not particularly convincing.

If he wants to champion accuracy, that’s fine. We should all welcome accuracy.

But accuracy works both ways. So do fairness, consistency, and basic standards of conduct.

You cannot demand that everyone else be precise, civil, and accountable while giving yourself a free pass to engage in personal attacks and speculation whenever someone challenges you.

Perhaps before appointing himself the forum’s moral and factual authority, Sneakster should take a moment to apply his own standards to his own behavior.

Because at this point, his reaction has become almost as interesting as the original discussion.

 

[Isaac]

Here some links reporting alleged grooming & rape:

1. Complex – Hulk Hogan’s Widow and Stepson Sued By Multiple Women Over Alleged Rape, Grooming⁠


2. TMZ – Hulk Hogan’s Widow Sued Over Son’s Booze-Fueled Party Where Alleged Rape Occurred⁠


3. Hoodline – Hulk Hogan’s Widow Sky Daily, Stepson Hit With Rape, Grooming Lawsuits in Florida⁠


4. 5th News – Hulk Hogan’s Widow Accused of Covering Up Rape at Son’s Party⁠


5. The Front Page – Sky Daily Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Rape and Evidence Tampering⁠


6. FOX 13 Tampa Bay – Hulk Hogan’s Widow, Stepson Sued Over Alleged Underage Drinking, Rape During Party⁠


7. FOX 2 Detroit – Hulk Hogan’s Widow, Stepson Sued Over Alleged Underage Drinking, Rape⁠


8. FOX 11 Los Angeles – Hulk Hogan’s Widow, Stepson Sued Over Alleged Underage Drinking, Rape⁠


9. Law & Crime Sidebar – Hulk Hogan’s Family Slapped With Rape Lawsuits⁠

 

[Isaac]

Sneakster, here’s a suggestion to perhaps flatten your Contradiction Intolerance Syndrome
It might be worth considering.

TR 0 Bullbait - designed around learning to remain composed when someone says or does something that normally provokes a reaction.

Perhaps a little practice in tolerating disagreement would be useful. Not everyone who posts something you disagree with is attacking you, spreading lies, or acting with malicious intent.

Being able to recognize an emotional trigger, consider another person’s point of view, distinguish facts from assumptions, and respond without turning the discussion into a personal confrontation is a valuable skill.

You don’t have to agree with Lee. You don’t have to agree with me. But you should be able to disagree without making every disagreement a personal crusade.

Sometimes the real test of communication isn’t how effectively you can correct someone else. It’s how effectively you can control your own reaction when someone doesn’t say what you think they should.

 

[Zertel]

The "Your content" part of my "Your Account" was deleted and restarted on Oct. 27, 2026 after I made a post. Maybe all the "Your content" entries were taking up too much computer memory and needed to be deleted?

 

[Type4_PTS]

The "Your content" part of my "Your Account" was deleted and restarted on Oct. 27, 2026 after I made a post. Maybe all the "Your content" entries were taking up too much computer memory and needed to be deleted?

The "Your content" section seems kind of strange, but I don't see any older posts or threads that were deleted when I look for them. But the ability to search the site seems broken now.

 

[I M Dex]

Sneakster: A Lecture on Accuracy, Hypocrisy, and Your Sudden Interest in My Posting History

Sneakster seems to have appointed himself the official guardian of accuracy whenever the subject of Sky Daily and the rape allegations comes up. His repeated insistence that Sky Daily hasn’t been criminally charged is technically correct. But apparently, he believes that repeating this fact often enough somehow makes the underlying allegations disappear.

Let’s establish something right from the beginning.

Nobody is saying that Sky Daily has been criminally charged with rape. Nobody is claiming that the allegations have been proven in a criminal court. And nobody is suggesting that an allegation automatically establishes guilt.

But there is a rather important distinction Sneakster seems determined to ignore: reporting allegations of rape is not the same thing as claiming someone has been criminally charged with rape.

There have been civil lawsuits involving allegations of sexual assault, and multiple news organizations have reported on the matter. The word RAPE has appeared prominently in the headlines of several of those reports.

This isn’t something Lee invented. It isn’t an imaginary story. And it certainly isn’t something that becomes unworthy of discussion simply because criminal charges haven’t been filed.

Lee acknowledged that his original thread title could have been worded more carefully. He even apologized and invited it to be changed. That’s a perfectly reasonable response.

But Sneakster wasn’t satisfied with correcting a potentially misleading headline. He went considerably further, accusing Lee of deliberately spreading defamatory lies and comparing his behavior to Scientology’s OSA PR tactics.

That’s quite an escalation.

If accuracy was genuinely his only concern, a simple clarification would have accomplished the objective. Instead, he seemed much more interested in questioning Lee’s motives and portraying the discussion itself as some kind of malicious campaign.

And that’s where his argument starts to become rather questionable.

The allegations are newsworthy. The civil litigation is newsworthy. The involvement of people connected to Scientology is newsworthy. The circumstances described in the reporting are newsworthy.

Nobody is obligated to ignore a serious news story until a prosecutor decides whether to pursue criminal charges.

Now let’s talk about Sneakster’s conduct toward me.

Apparently, his obsession with this disagreement wasn’t confined to Lee’s thread.

On an entirely unrelated thread, Sneakster decided to go digging through my posting history, pulled out a post from nearly five years ago, and started leaving negative reactions and hostile comments.

When I told him to fuck off with a middle-finger emoji … he then proceeded to construct an elaborate explanation about how my response was supposedly retaliation for his criticism of me on the Sky Daily thread.

He even added further commentary about my posting history, questioning how I could supposedly have thousands of messages that weren’t appearing in the XenForo search index.

Really?

For someone who repeatedly lectures others about accuracy, Sneakster seems remarkably comfortable speculating about other people’s motives and drawing conclusions from information he apparently doesn’t fully understand.

Let’s look at the double standard here.

Sneakster can pursue someone into unrelated discussions, dig through years-old posts, leave hostile reactions, question their motives, and scrutinize their posting history.

But when that person responds negatively, suddenly it’s a calculated personal attack and an act of retaliation.

Apparently, the rules of civility only apply when someone disagrees with Sneakster.

And here’s the irony: he accuses others of behaving like Scientology’s OSA while displaying the very sort of aggressive, personal, and distracting behavior that does absolutely nothing to advance an intelligent discussion.

I don’t need to prove Sneakster has some hidden agenda, nor am I claiming he has any particular affiliation. His behavior speaks for itself.

So here’s my position, without any ambiguity:

I am not declaring Sky Daily guilty of anything. I am not claiming criminal charges have been filed. I am not presenting allegations as established facts.

I am saying that serious allegations have been reported, civil litigation exists, and people have every right to discuss the matter.

The absence of criminal charges does not erase the allegations, invalidate the civil lawsuits, or make the news coverage illegitimate.

And Sneakster’s repeated attempts to turn a discussion about those allegations into an attack on the credibility and motives of the people discussing them are not particularly convincing.

If he wants to champion accuracy, that’s fine. We should all welcome accuracy.

But accuracy works both ways. So do fairness, consistency, and basic standards of conduct.

You cannot demand that everyone else be precise, civil, and accountable while giving yourself a free pass to engage in personal attacks and speculation whenever someone challenges you.

Perhaps before appointing himself the forum’s moral and factual authority, Sneakster should take a moment to apply his own standards to his own behavior.

Because at this point, his reaction has become almost as interesting as the original discussion.

Or, to put it more succinctly, sometimes things you say to or about another person and what they express says more about yourself than it does about them.

 

[Zertel]

The "Your content" section seems kind of strange, but I don't see any older posts or threads that were deleted when I look for them. But the ability to search the site seems broken now.

I had six or seven pages of references to posts I had previously made listed in the Your content section which were deleted. Emma recently made a post trying to reach @PirateAndBum, probably about changes or bugs in the forum.

Not related but there seems to be glitches on the internet today. ATM at my bank was down, went to the deli and a sign said the EBT was down. Problems and hacks being mentioned by others over the last two days. oops

 

[Lee #28]

OK, now we wait......

I guess as the 2 lawsuits have been accepted......discovery can now commence..... Don't know if there will be any info about that coming out, prior to a trial.



I wonder if Scientology will supply lawyers.......or what?

 

[Lee #28]

@TheSneakster.......this is just some speculation.

First off....I was not happy that Hogan married Sky. I am not a big wrestling fan....but Hulk Hogan was a world wide mega star of the wrestling world....he carried a huge following. Of course he has nothing to do with all this....

I find these lawsuits very interesting.....regarding Scientology.

Sure....I'd like the Jane Does to get their day in Court and find justice..... Some rather heinous accusations....and actions by the Defendants....such as the "Auctioning off of an underage girl" and such.... Apparently several instances of having to get Medical Attention.... an adult buy and providing alcohol to minors....and such... The "auctioning off" is tantamount to Slavery....

All pretty rough stuff!

What I find interesting is the Applied Scholastic stuff....and their connections to the Sea Org. From Sky's video she says that her son, Hitt is taking the Applied Scholastic ( home schooling) to finish High School to he can go to "Electricity" school.... (become an electrician). Hitt's sisters Facebook Page states that he graduated High School about 3 years ago? So that just doesn't make any sense....

Scientology marketing Applied Scholastics as a "non-denominational" study system is a big deal for the Cult.....and this Civil Lawsuit I would imagine jeopardizes that..... It is one of their prongs into the wog world for them....

Sky claims she is not a Scientologist.....yet one of the lawsuits posted a picture of her Applied Scholatics photo ID badge...

Jane Doe claims that Sky took her off her regular GED sort of program and enrolled her in Applied Scholastics....
Additionally she moved at least one of the Jane Does into her home....where her son, Hitt lived.

This brings up all sorts of questions.....such as how Sky got some sort of Guardian Ship over this girl..... These day one doesn't move a minor into one's home without some sort of authority to do so.... Child Protective Services must have been aware....as she was a minor. And if true that Jane Doe had to get "medical attention" due to being beat up a couple times by Hitt.....this is certainly a black eye for the Clearwater Police and CPS too....

This gets into Jane Doe's claim of Sky trying to Recruit her into the Cult......

I just don't see anyway for Scientology to not come out with guns blazing to nip this all in the bud....and try to beat this case....and or stretch it out as long as possible... I imagine every Discovery Request will be fought tooth and nail......

That means plenty of Scientology hired Lawyers and plenty of Private Detectives and such.... ( the entire bag of dirty tricks....)

I hope that the Jane Doe"s Attorneys are up to the task.....and that they keep both Jane Does safe and out of Clearwater.


After Thought..... If Hitt beat up a Jane Doe enough to require medical attention, on several occasions, did Sky report that? Of course not...

Applied Scolastics claims to be an International Organization,,,,and it is owned by ABLE.....which is owned by the Sea Org.......whether a brotherhood of monks or a faternal organization or not.... That is where the money flows......

 

[Type4_PTS]

@TheSneakster.......this is just some speculation.

First off....I was not happy that Hogan married Sky. I am not a big wrestling fan....but Hulk Hogan was a world wide mega star of the wrestling world....he carried a huge following. Of course he has nothing to do with all this....

The interview below is of Brooke Hogan, Hulk Hogan's daughter. Most of it is off topic for this thread. My impression from watching most of it:
1) She comes across as credible IMO.
2) Like you, she was not happy her father married Sky.
3) She believes her father would have lived longer had he chosen to be with people who really loved him. While Brooke didn't ever come out and say it, I got the distinct impression she didn't believe that Sky was one of those people.

If you want specific references to the video transcript or timestamps, I can post them tomorrow when I 'm back on my laptop.

Note: While Hulk Hogan was a megastar in the wrestling world, he probably wouldn't have ever won an award as a father or husband, and Brooke talks about that stuff as well.

 

[TheSneakster]

@TheSneakster.......this is just some speculation.

I find these lawsuits very interesting.....regarding Scientology.

Allow me to point out that (despite the misrepresentations of @Isaac upthread) until this comment I have not actually written one single word about either of these two lawsuits.

That having been said, if I understand it correctly, the C of $ is not named as a party to either of these suits - this time. So I reckon that for Davie McSavage, Sky Daily is PR problem, not a legal one.

 

[Lee #28]

^^^^
I’m ok without references to the daughter’s video.

My only point was that marrying Hogan, and now as his widow gave her at least some cache with his massive fan base. In fact one Jane Doe refers to Sky being at some wrestling event on a night an assault occurred.

I don’t know how much Sky is capitalizing upon her widow status in her “influencer “ life.

Regardless, the name Hulk Hogan has massive world wide value. Even something as simple as a toy Hogan doll or T/shirt is probably worth millions of dollars.

I guess I should watch the video if she goes into her control, if any, in that income.

Anyway, these suits aren’t really involved with that situation…

 

[Lee #28]

Allow me to point out that (despite the misrepresentations of @Isaac upthread) until this comment I have not actually written one single word about either of these two lawsuits.

That having been said, if I understand it correctly, the C of $ is not named as a party to either of these suits - this time. So I reckon that for Davie McSavage, Sky Daily is PR problem, not a legal one.

Yes, both the Church of Scientology and the Applied Scholastics Online Academy are explicitly mentioned in the civil lawsuits recently filed in Pinellas County against Melanie "Sky" Daily Bollea (the widow of Hulk Hogan) and her son, Hayden Hitt. [1, 2]
The references appear specifically in one of the two separate lawsuits filed by pseudonymous plaintiffs: [1, 2]

1. The Scientology Allegations
In the lawsuit filed by the individual plaintiff identified as Jane Doe (who was a minor when she met Daily’s son), the plaintiff claims that Sky Daily is a "high-ranking member of the Church of Scientology". The lawsuit alleges that Daily used alcohol and her position of influence to "groom" the vulnerable minor into joining the Church of Scientology after learning the girl had lost a parent and was under guardianship. The lawsuit also alleges that Daily claimed "she is too powerful to be messed with" due to her standing in the church. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Applied Scholastics Online Academy Allegations
The same lawsuit details that Jane Doe was originally enrolled in Florida Virtual School (a public online education program). However, the suit alleges that Daily unilaterally directed and enrolled her into the Applied Scholastics Online Academy, which the lawsuit characterizes as a Scientology-affiliated homeschooling program. To support this claim, the lawsuit reportedly includes text messages where Daily sent Jane Doe a photograph of her own teacher identification card for the Applied Scholastics program. [1, 2, 3]

Official Responses and Denials

• • The Church of Scientology: A spokesperson for the church, Sarah Heller, issued a statement flatly denying the lawsuit's characterization. The church stated that the claim that Daily is or ever was a high-ranking member is "categorically false" and that she holds no official position. [1, 2]
  • Applied Scholastics: The church spokesperson also asserted that Applied Scholastics operates as an independent, secular program, and that participating in it does not signify a religious affiliation with Scientology. [1, 2]
  • Sky Daily: Daily has publicly denied the grooming and Scientology allegations, stating in online videos that she is not a Scientologist. [1, 2]

(Note: The second, separate lawsuit filed by Jane A. Doe on behalf of a minor child, Jane B. Doe, focuses strictly on severe negligence and an alleged sexual assault that took place during an unsupervised house party at Daily's home on March 28, 2026, and does not center on the Scientology or schooling recruitment allegations). [1]

 

[TheSneakster]

Yes, both the Church of Scientology and the Applied Scholastics Online Academy are explicitly mentioned

Mentioned is not the same as being named as defendants in either of the suits. Neither C of $ nor Applied Scholastics are being sued. Which is why I said these suits are a PR problem and not a Legal problem.