Law&Crime Sidebar - Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Winery Battle, Scientologist Rape Case, Kate Moss Talks Depp Trial

Episode Date: July 26, 2022

Angelina Jolie won a small victory in her battle against ex-husband Brad Pitt over the winery they own and the Church of Scientology goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing for religious freedom in a case involving the accusers of actor Danny Masterson. Plus, British supermodel and Johnny Depp's ex-girlfriend Kate Moss discussed why she testified in the defamation trial. The Law&Crime Network's Angenette Levy has the latest on these stories.GUESTS:Jonathan Handel, Entertainment Attorney: https://twitter.com/jhandelTony Ortega, Journalist: https://twitter.com/TonyOrtega94Katherine Lizardo, Attorney: https://twitter.com/klizardoesqLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Angelina, Jolie, and Brad Pitt battling it out over a winery, they share, and she's won a small victory in court. I'm Anjanette. and welcome to this latest edition of Law and Crimes Sidebar Podcast. Now, this all has to do with a lawsuit between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. You know that they were together for a number of years, share a number of children together. Well, they also shared the Miraval winery.

And Angelina Jolie had wanted some documents handed over to her attorneys from Brad Pitt's attorneys that included some correspondence. And Brad Pitt's attorneys didn't want to hand over these items. well, a judge has said they have to do it. So joining us to talk about this is Jonathan Handel. He's an entertainment lawyer based in Los Angeles. Jonathan, welcome back to Sidebar. We appreciate you coming on. Oh, it's a pleasure to be back.

Thank you. Tell us what's going on with this, because I think it's confusing if you haven't been following it. Well, that's right. And, you know, to the outside observer, it may look just like whining about a winery. But in fact, this is a winery that Brangelina, the two of them bought in 2008.

They got married at the winery in the south of France, beautiful countryside, beautiful mansion in 2014, and we're hoping to live out the rest of their lives there, they said, and run the wineries a family business, a smooth finish, as wine experts might say. But it's all turned into sour grapes. When they split, Brad had been putting, apparently been putting a lot of sweat equity,

in other words, a lot of hard work. into improving the property and really was very personally enthusiastic about the winery. Angelina sold her half of the winery to the Russian businessman who controls the Stoli liquor group. And Brad feels that he does not want to be partners with them. They would take control, he feels. They would oust him from what he wanted to be a family home. I think that feeling is turned to vinegar. And in fact, there just is not any, by all appearances, any goodwill between them.

This is a glass that's fallen to the floor and shattered. Yeah, most definitely. And you're full of wine jokes, which I can greatly appreciate. I love a good pun and a good joke. So what comes next for this? Because it just really seems like a bit of a mess and a continuation of things that's been going on with this couple for some time. They've fought over the children. Now they're fighting over the winery.

So what happens next? Well, it is a terrible mess. There is reportedly actually litigation in three countries, believe it or not, in France, Luxembourg, and in California. Another great wine venue, by the way. I have to put in a plug for our home state. But in fact, we are at what's called the discovery phase. And that's a phase in a civil lawsuit where each side, is supposed to hand over documents and answer questions and sit for depositions and that

kind of thing exchange information so it's it's to an outsider it's a little bit ironic you think well two people are fighting each other they're filing you know a lawsuit but the law requires that there be a degree of cooperation in the lawsuit and then it not be a hide the truth shell game so that's where we're at the it's unusual for a discovery dispute to be this vitriolic, but they can be because people really view this strategically. What information do I have to give the other side? What can I hold back? What can I conceal? And in an era of computers and cell phones, of course, there are thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of potential documents in many lawsuits that people want, so-called

electronic discovery or e-discovery. So it's a big deal, but we are still in early phases. This is not, you know, to be clear, any kind of a judgment one way or the other as to who is right on the merits. That's going to take quite some time. I'm wondering to myself, would Angelina Jolie have handed over her stake in this to Stollies or whatever? Because, you know, is this just like a way to get Brad Pitt riled up? I mean, what do you think this was? Or maybe she just didn't want to deal with it anymore? Well, I don't want to speculate, but she did say that she no longer could reconcile owning a winery with her feelings about alcohol, which is a little hard to understand

when you bought a winery before you were married and then got married at the winery. So it's hard to know what to make of that. you know I imagine that she she would have realized that this would rile Brad up but by the same token she no longer wanted to be partners with him she no longer wanted to be business partners with him she no longer wanted to ultimately retire to the south of France in a big house with him so is she supposed to walk away from her investment you know that's what else do you do with it. It's a $168 million property at this point. They bought it for significantly less, I think, in the 20s or teens even of millions back in 08. But, you know, it's a business asset

as well as a marital asset. Most definitely. Do you want to, you said you had some, a little bit of news for us or? No, my, my excitement really was the, the opportunity to tell wine jokes. It's not often that you get to do that. And, you know, without taking away from the seriousness of this for the people involved, you do look over at this and say, well, you know, a good wine age as well. Apparently this marriage did not. A lot of Hollywood marriages do not age well, as we all know. You know, we know of some that have stood the test of time.

I think of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. some others, but, you know, typically they don't, they don't hold up. Well, Jonathan Handel, entertainment lawyer based in Los Angeles. Thanks so much. Thanks very much. The Church of Scientology is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court's ruling regarding some information in a lawsuit filed by accusers of the church and Danny Masterson over harassment allegations. We've been following the Danny Masterson case here on law and crime. It's a really interesting case with some disturbing allegations, and the Church of Scientology is in the middle of it. And joining us to talk about this is a very special guest. He is Tony Ortega. He is the former editor of the Village Voice, but he also

broke the Danny Masterson story years and years ago, and he writes about Scientology and its controversies daily in his substack account, which is called the Underground Bunker. So Tony, welcome to law and crime sidebar. We appreciate you coming on. Well, thank you very much for having me on. I know you guys have been covering this case. It's a fascinating one. It's very fascinating. And I'll leave it up to you to really inform the viewers about what's at the heart of this case? Well, it is complex because, first of all, it's important for people to understand there's both a civil lawsuit on the one hand and a criminal prosecution. Danny Masterson has an October 11th trial date. He's accused of forcibly raping three women. If he's convicted,

of all three, he's facing 45 years to life in prison. But the Supreme Court action is on the civil lawsuit side, where these same women sued Danny and the church claiming that after they went forward to the LAPD, Scientology then harassed them for years. And again, it's important to understand the civil lawsuit is not about the rapes themselves. It's about that harassment. Scientology was able to derail that lawsuit early on by saying, hey, they were Scientologists at the time. They signed contracts where they promised not to sue us and take it to our own version of arbitration instead. And their trial court judge agreed, denied them the right to trial and forced them into arbitration. But that was that, go ahead. So then, but that was then overturned this last

January in a stunning ruling by an appeals court that said, hang on, we understand the Scientology has this thing where their members sign or where their rights and they can't sue them. However, in this case, the harassment that supposed that these women are alleged, occurred after they left the church. And so they then said these contracts should not apply. And that's got Scientology very unhappy. This is what they're asking the Supreme Court to look at. And the petition they made to the Supreme Court is saying,

look, this threatens our very religious freedom. And what I've asked my readers to look at is in their petition, they're leaving out that detail that the appeals court was so careful to point out that this is not denying. a church, the right to enforce its contracts, it's saying that once the members leave and then you're accused of harming them, those contracts shouldn't apply. And that's really at the heart of this. Tony, I think it's stunning that any church would ask a member to sign an arbitration clause. I've never heard of such a thing. I was raised Episcopalian. Maybe we just, maybe I missed that

part. But I don't recall ever hearing of something like this. It sounds really uncommon. It is uncommon, and it arose after the church was sued a few times in the 80s and the 90s over some parishioners who claimed they were harmed, a parishioner died. And so now you can't get any service at the church of Scientology, not, I mean, any kind of course whatsoever without signing these service contracts that have arbitration clauses. And at the time, I mean, I've talked to people about this Scientologist. They say at the time, you just sign, okay, I need to sign this document to get into this course. I'll sign it. They don't know what they're signing. And so Scientology has been derailing a few lawsuits this way, and judges have found a contract's a contract.

But like I said, in this case, it's not just the fact that it's rape victims who say they were harassed, which is bad enough, but that the harassment occurred after they left. And this is what Scientology is very unhappy about. They want these contracts to apply for the rest of these people's lives. And they want things that happened in that church to remain secret. it. We've seen that with Leah Remini. She left and spoke out. They were none too pleased about that. Well, that's the key about arbitration is it takes it out of a court of law. It takes it behind closed doors. And especially in Scientology, their religious arbitration is not like the kind of independent arbitration you might be familiar with where, you know, somebody's suing a doctor

or a corporation and the two sides sit down and have the evidence looked at. In the Scientology's case, they require a three-person arbitrating panel of members in good standing. And any Scientologists will tell you that once you leave and sue the church, no Scientologist is going to see that fairly. So none of these judges are really grappling with that fairness issue. And I don't think, I think Scientology, you know, normally people who petition the Supreme Court, it's a long shot, right? This is particularly a long shot because this ruling was not published. It was not formally published. And in fact, Scientology opposed it being published, but that actually makes it less likely for the Supreme Court to take up because it's not precedent. It doesn't set precedent

in California as law. So you think that the U.S. Supreme Court will not take up this case? I think any normal year, the U.S. Supreme Court would not bother with an unpublished California opinion. But I mean, this is a very unusual Supreme Court we have right now. And I think Scientology is laying on the religious language very thick. in this petition thinking that they might have a shot with this particular Supreme Court, so who knows? Oh, and that's, I'm sure, strategic because they're viewing the majority

as being very strong on religious freedom and you don't touch religion no matter what. I'm sure that's the thinking of the lawyers drafting things on behalf of the Church of Scientology, which may not be true. I mean, Amy Coney Barrett is a Catholic. She's not a Scientologist. Not that that matters, but you know what I'm saying.

Well, and that's why, I think that's why they spend the first third of the petition comparing themselves to other religious traditions and internal justice. And I, you know, they know what they're doing. They're specifically not mentioning what was so important to the California Appeals Court that this was not about religious freedom. It's about the fact that once somebody leaves, you can't harm them and then require them to go to your ecclesiastical proceeding. You know, it just doesn't make sense. What do you see happening next in the Masterson case? You mentioned the criminal trial in October.

Right. So Danny's been filing every appeal and petition he possibly can to try to slow this thing down. The most recent thing he did was fire his two attorneys, Tom Mezzaro and Sharon Applebaum. That only bought him six weeks, though. So he's got Philip Cohen and Sean Hawley. He's gotten October 11th trial date. The most recent motion he filed to try to get one of the counts dismissed was denied on June 30th. He's kind of running out. of ways to put this off. And what I'm really wondering about is that they had a preliminary hearing last May. Well, these women got to testify live in court for the first time.

And what stunned me was how much Scientology itself was part of the case. And Scientology is not a party. They can't bring their attorney in to object or do anything like that. So if that preliminary hearing is just a preview, you know, as it is to the trial itself, four-week trial with testimony about Scientology every day. I just can't imagine that David Mascavage wants this trial to happen. And I wonder if he's going to be leaning on Danny to offer some kind of a deal to the DA. I don't know. I don't know. I'm planning on being out there for this trial starting in October. So it's going to be something else. Yeah, I think you're

right about that. And it sounds like it's not only going to be Danny Masterson on trial, but also Scientology. Absolutely. And they've been very unhappy that this judge has allowed a limited testimony about that. But it's very relevant. No doubt. Well, Tony Ortega, thank you so much for coming on to talk with us. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me on. This has been great. Thank you. We were leaving the room, and Johnny left the room before I did, and there had been a rainstorm, and as I left the room, I slid down the stairs, and I hurt my back. How did you I apologize, Ms. Moss.

Please continue. And I screamed because I was in because I didn't know what had happened to me and I was in pain and he came running back to help me and carried me to my room and got me medical attention. And that was Kate Moss,

the British supermodel and really she's like British royalty. testifying at the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard just in the last six weeks or so. And this was crucial testimony for Johnny Depp because Amber Heard had testified that she had heard that Kate Moss had been tossed down a set of stairs by Johnny Depp when they were dating in the 1990s. And she really painted this picture of someone who had abused other women, particularly Kate Moss. And Kate Moss was asked at the trial why she decided to testify. Why did you decide to testify today? Objection, Your Honor. All right.

Let's be on the scope of what we just talked about. All right. I'll sustain the objection. And you saw that Amber Hurd's attorney, Benjamin Rottenborn, objected. So Kate Moss didn't get to answer that question, but she is answering that question now. She spoke out about this in an interview with BBC radio. Here's what she had to say. I believe in the truth and I believe in fairness and justice.

and justice. I know the truth about Donnie. I know he never kicked me down the stairs. I had to say that truth. And joining me to talk about this is Catherine Lizardo. She's a plaintiff's attorney out of Texas. And Catherine followed every single step of the Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard trial, just like I did. We followed it together. We followed it with you guys. And now we're following everything that's happening post trial. Catherine, first of all, um, Kate Moss would never have been allowed to testify had it not been for Amber Hurd basically bringing her up in her testimony. Exactly.

And we remember that infamous Benchew fist bump that everyone was talking about and was wondering, why did he have that reaction? And I mentioned that he didn't have the poker face because that gave us an indication that something big was about to happen. And that is that Amber Hurd just opened the door for. prior bad acts testimony. And prior bad acts means that things that you did that could not be presented in front of the jury are generally not allowed because they're prejudicial, but because of Amber Heard's testimony that Kate Moss supposedly was thrown down the stairs by Johnny Depp,

that allowed Johnny Depp's team to go ahead and introduce Kate Moss's testimony. I remember a lot of people weren't sure if that was even possible, because again, prior bad acts are not supposed to be let in. A lot of people are questioning, can they even get Kate Moss in? Later on the trial, we find out that there was actually a hearing about prior bad acts and specifically something like this. And judge as karate ruled, we can't bring that in unless someone opens the door. And so, and behold, Amber heard did just exactly that. That's why Kate Moss was able to come in. And really, you know, it's almost like a non-bad act to me because Kate Moss got on the stand and said, that is not true. That is not at all what happened. I slipped and fell. He picked me up and got me medical care. Also, this opened the door for the team, the Johnny Depp's team, to then call Beverly Leonard, the police officer who arrested Amber Hurd on that domestic violence charge. It was later dropped at the Seattle airport. And this had to do with an incident involving her ex. So,

It opened the door for Johnny Depp to be able to say, I didn't do that. I didn't throw Kate Moss down a set of stairs. It then opened the door for his team to present evidence that Amber Heard had had some abusive incidents in her past. Exactly. Those were two doors opened by Amber Heard with that just one testimony. And you're right. It's very important that we point out that Johnny Depp did not push Kate Moss down.

So it's not really a prior bad act by Johnny Depp, but because Amber Heard made it sound that way, it allowed Johnny Depp's team to bring in Kate Moss as a rebuttal. And I remember Ben Chu actually did an interview post-trial after trial saying that it gave them a lot of pressure to bring in Kate Moss because she's very private. But Kate Moss wanted to testify and she agreed to testify voluntarily. And it's my understanding, Catherine, that they didn't ask her. Kate Moss approached them. That's my understanding of how it happened.

That's how upset she was by this. Final thoughts? Yes. I think it's very interesting, her recent interview with Lauren Laverne of the BBC radio show because we saw how Ben Chu was not able to actually get an answer to the question as to she testified and you played that here. I thought it was brilliant in terms of she now got to answer that months later as to why she came and testified.

And I love how she said that she believed in the truth and she believed in fairness and justice. That's why she came out because she knew Johnny Depp did not push her down the stairs, which actually leads me to a second final thought, if I may, which is Johnny Depp testified in his rebuttal case that he actually told Amber Heard the truth about what happened with him and Kate Moss, and yet she was on the stand and still said that Johnny Depp threw down Kate Moss. If that's not lying blatantly understand, I don't know what is. So very interesting to know maybe that's one of the reason why the jury found actual malice on Amber Heard, because that's intentionally saying something wrong and just perjurious, I believe.

And that's a really good point, Catherine, because he did say that, that she twisted it and that he had told her about it. So thank you again, as always, for being with us. We really appreciate it. Thank you, Aunt Jeanette. My pleasure. And that's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. This podcast is produced by Michael Dininger and Sam Goldberg. Alyssa Fisher is our booking producer. Bobby Zoki is our YouTube manager and Kiera Bronson handles our social media. You can find Sidebar on Apple, Google, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcast. And of course, you can watch Sidebar on our YouTube channel. I'm Anjanet Levy. Thanks for listening to Sidebar and we'll see you next time.

all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.