Friday, November 22, 2019

Blind Item #6

The director is in a sticky situation. If he settles with his accuser, than the celebrity cult will forever brandish him a rapist. He wants to bring in evidence that the religion is behind all of the accusations, but isn't being allowed to do so. Plus, some of his motions are really victim shaming in disguise. On the other hand, if the accuser loses any of the director's motions, it is going to be tough to go to trial because of some of the communications made with others about the motive and who is behind the suits.

15 comments:

MDAnderson said...

Paul Haggis

Tricia13 said...

Haggis?

MyDogSmiles said...

Scientology

MyDogSmiles said...

https://pagesix.com/2019/11/21/paul-haggis-wants-his-rape-accusers-sexual-history/

squirrelmistress said...

blame the victim...just like the dems

Brayson87 said...

Maybe the text messages right after, but what does the sexual history matter? That's a tactic you usually see guilty dirtbags use.

TeeHee@U said...

In case anyone is really interested in California rape shield laws.

A defendant (Haggis) is allowed to bring up past consensual activity between him and his accuser, but, cannot use 3rd party / reputation accounts of the accuser's past sexual encounters with other people...UNLESS...the accuser brings it up first and then the defendant (Haggis) can rebut/ cross examine the accuser's past sexual acts but limited in the scope to what the accuser brought up in their testimony .

So, yes, Haggis can bring up prior consensual acts with the accuser.

It is possible Haggis could both be an abuser and Scientology is behind it. I don't know what to believe. SO yes, "sticky" situation is right.

Low Key said...

How do you brandish somebody? Wave them around onna stick?

Flashy Vic said...

@Low Key.

In West Hollywood there are probably clubs for that.

longtimereader said...

So California is basically owned by CO$?

Vita said...

LowKey/FlashyVic--LOL!😂

Me Again said...

@squirrel....more like demean the victim and then pay them off, just like the cheetah in charge.

Me Again said...

CheetOh in charge. Darn spell check.

OKay said...

What's this "he's not allowed" bullshit? Paul, if you've got proof, even circumstantial, USE IT.

m said...

^this

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days