Danny Masterson Rape accusers see Church of Scientology petition to US Supreme Court

Months before the start of Danny Masterson’s trial in Los Angeles, the Church of Scientology launched a Hail Mary initiative to persuade the US Supreme Court to intervene in this horrific affair.

Despite a setback in a California appeals court and a rejection by the Golden State Supreme Court, the organization led by David Miscavige has now asked SCOTUS to prevent Masterson’s alleged victims from suing her. church for “a ferocious campaign of harassment against them.”

Masterson, a longtime Scientologist, was arrested in June 2020 on suspicion of violent rape that took place between 2001 and 2003 at his home in Hollywood Hills. If the actor is convicted, he faces up to 45 years in prison.

In the case of the four women at the center of the latest Scientology movement, the previous courts of law held that because the women left the church, they are no longer bound by the religious arbitration agreement with which they agreed to join stardom. – Heavy group.

In documents filed in Washington this week (read them here), Scientology says it disagrees and asks SCOTUS to overrule the California Court of Appeals decision. Indeed, Scientology claims that its First Amendment rights have been violated, as well as a fundamental premise of the Covenant in America:

The argument here is simple. The defendants, as a condition for the Applicants’ church membership, have repeatedly and expressly consented to religious arbitration of any dispute between them and the Applicants, regardless of when such disputes arose. An agreement to submit disputes to religious arbitration is not unusual. American courts have long recognized the right of religious institutions to use dispute resolution procedures that are derived from and guided by their core beliefs and scriptures. Secular courts have reached agreements to submit disputes to religious arbitration under the same conditions as agreements requiring secular arbitration and have rejected invitations to discriminate against religious arbitration simply because it is religious.

At some point, the respondents changed their minds and beliefs. They argued that their change of faith should free them from the contractual obligation to present their dispute with the plaintiffs in a religious forum of their choice.

In a certiorari petition filed with SCOTUS on July 19, Scientology attorneys of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP added that the California Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit attempted to “use the First Amendment as a weapon against religious freedom, arguing that the First Amendment requires restrictions that apply only to religious, non-secular arbitration agreements.

Around the same time as Masterson’s criminal trial, scheduled to end in October, the matter initially enabled Scientology to succeed in its efforts to force arbitration, the immediate result of a lawsuit filed by four women with the Superior Court of Los Angeles in summer 2019.. . Affirming it That show from the 70s The actor raped them in the first decade of the 21st century, and the four women reported the assaults to the LAPD in 2016 and 2017.

Masterson, who subsequently ditched Netflix’s Ashton Kutcher comedy co-star Ranch Since the end of 2017 he has always denied having had non-consensual relations with anyone. Within the blast radius of police interviews and subsequent investigations into rape allegations, the four women reported harassment, stalking, digital threats and, in one case, a pet was killed and their home was attacked by members. Scientology agents or supporters.

Scientology denies involvement in such activities and also wants the matter to be discussed behind closed doors. Meanwhile, Masterson was released on $ 3.3 million bail prior to trial. In June 2021, the actor, who repeatedly said no, had to hand over his passport because prosecutors feared it was a flight risk.

Last month, Judge Charlene Olmedo denied Masterson’s motion to dismiss one of three rape charges, arguing that the delay in the prosecution undermined the plaintiff’s defense.