Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My first reaction just when hearing this story is that of course Match.com isn’t responsible in this case, but then I heard the details and realized that it’s time that Match checked user identities against the sex offender database. After this lawsuit, they’ve instituted that policy but claimed they were about to do it anyway.

53 year-old Carol Markin went on a second date with a guy she met on Match and was sexually assaulted. She said she tried to Google him ahead of time, but was never given a full name. (He did tell her his name but mumbled it so she wasn’t able to hear it all.) It was easy enough for her find out that he’s been convicted of multiple sex offenses once she got his name though (after he’d violated her), and she’s now suing Match to require that they do this simple background check on all their members. She’s not suing for money at all, just to bring awareness to this issue and to put pressure on them. It seems very reasonable and if she had to sue match to get this result then more power to her:

The Hollywood executive who’s suing Match.com, after claiming she was sexually assaulted by a convicted sex offender she met on the dating website, revealed her identity for the first time on The Today Show Tuesday.

Freelance producer/writer Carol Markin, 53, said she’s tired of hiding.

Markin told The Today Show she had a pleasant first date with her accused attacker, Alan Wurtzel, but the second date ended in horror, as he sexually assaulted her in his living room.

“He jumped me and then he overpowered me … I was afraid,” she said. “I don’t think people go on websites thinking their gonna get themselves in unsafe situations.”

Wurtzel has pleaded not guilty, claiming their sex was consensual.

After the incident, Markin said she researched Wurtzel’s background and learned he’d had a history of misdemeanor sex convictions.

Not seeking any money, Markin said her civil suit against Match.com (which she filed as “Jane Doe”) aims toward a reform of the website’s policies, so that they cross-check their clients with the sex offender registry.

“I think I’ve elevated the conversation about what’s going on,” she said. “They’re in the business of putting people together — I think they should be responsible about this.”

The website is already implementing security changes they claimed were in the works prior to the lawsuit. The company said in a previous statement: “While incidents like this one between individuals who meet on Match.com are extremely rare, it doesn’t make them any less horrifying.”

[From Radar]

Match.com is awesome and I personally know a lot of success stories from that site. This does remind you that you need to trust your instincts and follow certain rules when you meet someone online. Always screen someone carefully first through e-mail, then phone and/or skype ahead of time – don’t skip any steps no matter how good they sound! Meet someone in a public place first, have a friend on standby if possible, and if not make sure you tell your friends and family where you’re going to be and when so they can check to make sure you’re ok immediately afterwards. Thankfully terrible stories like this are the extreme exception, and maybe the awful experience this woman went through will help others avoid being victimized in the future. She’s very brave for speaking out like this.

About a month ago, our beloved hot mess Paz de la Huerta was arrested in NYC. She was drunk off her ass at the same bar as Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Swerta (some reality show person) and several dudes that Paz wanted to sex up. When Paz tried to hit on the dudes (and by that I mean Paz likely took out one boob, began fondling herself and said to the men, “Come here.”), this Samantha person laughed at Paz and mocked her drunkenness. Paz responded by punching Samantha in the face and throwing a glass at her. So… Paz was arrested, and now she’s been officially charged with assault.

‘Boardwalk Empire’ star Paz de la Huerta was just charged with assault for allegedly attacking “City” star Samantha Swetra at an NYC party last month … TMZ has learned.

Paz just appeared in criminal court in Manhattan — where the D.A. filed 5 misdemeanor charges against de la Huerta … including two counts of 3rd degree assault, 4th degree criminal possession of a weapon, attempted assault, and harassment.

The judge also granted a temporary restraining order against Paz — which even prohibits Paz from contacting Samantha on Facebook.

As we first reported, Paz allegedly threw a drinking glass at Samantha and punched her in the face during a party at the Standard Hotel on March 22.

Paz is due back in court on May 19.

UPDATE: Prosecutors told the judge Paz trashed Samantha during her stint in the police station on the night of the incident … saying, “I’m a REAL actress — HBO! She’s a publicity seeker, a FAKE actress.”

[From TMZ]

LMAO at “I’m a REAL actress — HBO! She’s a publicity seeker, a FAKE actress.” Oh, Paz! I love you. On Boardwalk Empire, isn’t she just “the slut”? Doesn’t she do, like, everybody on the show? Isn’t her work just taking off her clothes and moaning? And beyond the show, isn’t Paz basically famous for taking off her clothes and being a drunken, violent mess? Now, I don’t like these interchangeable reality stars any more than Paz, but methinks Paz is not the one to make the “publicity seeker/fake actress” point.

So, do you think Paz will have to do time for assault? I doubt it. She’ll probably just get, like, community service. Which should be EPIC.

Photos courtesy of Fame & WENN.

As Radar Online reports, the website NecklaceVideo.com is currently selling views of the Lindsay Lohan “case of the purloined necklace” surveillance video for $2.99 a pop. It seems incredibly tacky and stupid in that it could show a financial and promotional motive for pressing charges against Lindsay, and give her defense team solid evidence to cast doubt on the store’s version of events. We’ve already seen a segment of the video on Entertainment Tonight, after the store sold it to the Associated Press for a reported $40,000. Lindsay announced plans to sue over its release, but it’s unclear whether she actually followed through with that.

Now they’re offering views of the tape online for $2.99. The whole tape is about 45 minutes and it’s unclear to me from this story and from the website whether you have to pay each time for access to different parts of it.

The jewelry store at the center of the Lindsay Lohan theft case is charging online users $2.99 to watch the surveillance video showing the actress allegedly stealing a $2500 necklace, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

The video, which was first obtained by The Associated Press and licensed to Entertainment Tonight, shows four different camera angles and is 42 minutes in length.

On necklacevideo.com, a representative associated with Kamofie & Company is promising to post “new content every day” and are attempting to seduce an audience to “come back tomorrow for more.”

“We will help you make-up your mind about what really happened,” the website brazenly declares.

It is yet another bizarre development from the Venice Beach, Calif., store which also attempted but failed to attract a book deal.

They even touted a possible movie chronicling the high-profile case.

In an email promoting the website, necklacevideo.com declares that it can provide answers to whom to believe in the case and even whether Lohan, 24, will “someday win the Academy Award for Best Actress.”

“NecklaceVideo.com is disclosing everything,” it’s said, adding: “The entire video surveillance footage, the real nature of the necklace, the supposed dialogue between Lindsay and the salesgirl.”

[From Radar Online]

This report on Radar makes it sound like it makes sense – there’s a website where you can buy access to the tape for $2.99. But the NecklaceVideo website is absurd. The other posts beneath the top one make no sense and read like the stuff that spammers put up as an excuse to include links to their websites. It’s confusing, and seems like they picked random filler stories for the rest of the website. Did they hire a non-English speaking person to make it for them and did they just post nonsense? It’s ridiculous. The sad thing is that this could vindicate Linnocent and add some credence to that “they’re just out to get me and hitch their name to my star” defense that she’s uses every single time.

So I have a potential conspiracy theory that Lindsay set up this website to make herself look like an innocent victim. There are certainly plenty of positive comments about her and the content of the site isn’t that negative apart from the video. It’s registered under a P.O. Box and someone named “C.M. Spencer,” who is “a crisis management expert who represents the jewelry store” and has spoken out about their justification for releasing the tape. This is a very dumb move and that website is ridiculous.

Photo credit: WENN.com in the header, 1/27/11. Juan Rico/Fame Pictures below. 3/28/11.

Peaches Geldof is the 22 year-old daughter of Sir Bob Geldof (the founder of Live Aid) and the late Paula Yates. She dabbles in writing and occasionally models, but generally has no career or educational ambitions to speak of. She’s known for marrying young and divorcing after six months, dating Eli Roth (it’s over now, thank goodness), dressing like crap both on the red carpet and off, having trashy tattoos and doing drugs. So it’s not surprising to hear that she’s a shoplifter too, although I am surprised that it’s taken this long for us to learn about it. Maybe all the other dumb sh*t she does overshadow the stories of her thievery.

Peaches Geldof has been accused of stealing a dress from a London clothes shop.

Staff at the Three Amigos store in Camden Town claimed that the garment disappeared after the 22-year-old TV presenter visited last week.

It is thought that owners of the shop, which sells skater-style clothing, tried to contact Miss Geldof when they were unable to find the dress, but called police yesterday after receiving no reply.

One line of inquiry is that the alleged theft is due to a misunderstanding between the shop and Miss Geldof.

Last night detectives were waiting to question the daughter of Boomtown Rats star Sir Bob Geldof and his late wife Paula Yates.

The claims are the latest in a long line of shoplifting allegations for the socialite – though she has always been exonerated.

In March 2008, she was accused of leaving the Victim store near Carnaby Street with a £500 dress she had not paid for.

After store staff realised it was missing, they phoned her management firm and Miss Geldof returned to the shop and apologised, saying it had been a ‘simple misunderstanding’.

In 2007, she was accused of taking clothes from a photoshoot, and in October 2006 she was stopped at Urban Outfitters in Kensington High Street on suspicion of shoplifting a coat. She was allowed to leave after paying for the item.

In April 2009, Miss Geldof was wrongly accused of stealing an item of clothing from east London shop Luna & Curious, where staff claimed she had been behaving ‘atrociously’.

She bought a number of garments but was later stopped by the owner who accused her of taking one without paying. She insisted it was an honest mistake and returned it.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said yesterday: ‘We can confirm police have received an allegation of theft. It is alleged that on March 4 a woman stole a dress from a shop in Camden Road. Officers are investigating the alleged theft.’

A spokesman for Miss Geldof said: ‘On the afternoon of March 4 Peaches was picked up from her home address at 1.15pm and taken to a voiceover studio in SE1 where she spent two and a half hours.

‘Peaches knows nothing about this incident which we strenuously deny.’

[From The Daily Mail thanks Smartie for the tip]

Wait – Peaches is a TV presenter now? A quick glance at her Wikipedia page confirms that she can add that to her storied resume, since she has “a six part series on ITV2 called, ‘OMG, Totally Peaches’, a problem solving chat and guest show with audience participation.” Reading over the description on the ITV website, it sounds like Ricki Lake, only trashier and dumber. It’s airing now and they cover topics like “polyamorous” people and “furries,” or people who dress like animals. (You can watch a segment here and below.)

So did Peaches jeopardize her new talkshow gig with her sticky fingers? She lost her modeling gig with Ultimo after nude photos and a story came out that she’d done drugs with a onetime hookup. She may be secure in this job for now, but if she keeps pulling stunts like this all the opportunities she’s inexplicably being handed will dry up for her.

In related news, Peaches tweeted a photo of herself wearing a diamond ring and wrote that it was a birthday gift from her most recent boyfriend, a musician from the band S.C.U.M. She similarly wore a ring on her left hand and is thought to have planted engagement stories when she was dating Eli Roth. You would think that she would learn by now that she should wait a while to get married again.

Here’s Peaches on her new talkshow interviewing some “furries.” They say they’re not sexual about it, but that the American furries are! Peaches comes on at 2:00. Check out her huge teeth. It’s like she’s whistling through them.

Peaches is shown with her boyfriend, Thomas Cohen, on 3/10/11. Credit: WENN.com

This weekend’s Saturday Night Live hosted by Miley Cyrus included a few very mild barbs aimed toward Lindsay Lohan’s latest foibles. Compared to the stuff that late night talk show hosts, comics, bloggers, judges, prosecutors, random preteens on Twitter and anyone who has ever “worked” with her says about her, it was very minor. During Miley’s opening skiton SNL she sang “I never stole a necklace or got a DUI .. never cheated on wife like that golfer guy … so what if you can see a little boob from the side … I’m sorry if I’m not perfect.” Instead of “I never,” Miley could have substituted “I haven’t yet” for accuracy. Miley also made an appearance as Lindsay on the Charlie Sheen spoof show “Duh, Winning!” That’s at about 1:00 to go in the video above. (Only plays for US visitors.) She joked “My new movie Herbie opened 68 months ago and the Los Angeles Court House just gave me my own parking spot. Winning! Duh!” She also grabbed some “baby urine” from Sheen, presumably for help with an upcoming drug test.

That was enough to upset Lindsay, who hosted Saturday Night three times between 2004 and 2006. (Which apparently never prepared her to graciously accept her status as a punchline staple). According to TMZ, which has been running stories from the Lohan camp for weeks, Lindsay considers creator Lorne Michaels “a mentor and father figure” and has “fired off an [email] to… Michaels – explaining she was disappointed with him for allowing Miley Cyrus to take digs at her on the show. [She] felt betrayed that he would let Miley mock her on TV [and] sent an email to let him know she was upset.”

Meanwhile the case of the purloined necklace is still happening. The jeweler has sold a copy of the surveillance tape showing Lindsay in the store to Entertainment Tonight, and they insist that the public release of the tape does not violate the law and will only help their case. Lindsay’s people of course insist that the tape vindicates her and that she was either loaned the necklace or forgot she was wearing it.

Only that latest excuse doesn’t hold water when you view the tape. ET had on famed lawyer Marcia Clarke, (you can view Marcia’s analysis here) who reviewed the tape and noted that Lindsay touched her neck repeatedly after she put the necklace on along with her own necklace. According to Clarke, that is a strong indicator of intent and the fact that Lindsay was conscious of the necklace being there. Clarke says that Lindsay should try to use the same excuse she gave at the beginning of this debacle – that the necklace was lent to her, a claim that the jeweler strongly denies and that isn’t supported by the tape. As Clarke explains, if Lindsay was loaned the necklace, she would have been shown on tape filling out paperwork, and it would have been wrapped up prior to handing it over. As it is, it looks like she intentionally stole it. For a probation violation like this one, Clarke says that you don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt and you don’t get a jury trial. “All you need is a preponderance of evidence. That means that she could get jail time even if this case never goes to trial.” Clarke thinks Lindsay might squeeze through however.

Some light jokes on Saturday Night Live are the least of Lindsay’s problems. How is she going to handle the jeers and catcalls she’s sure to get from the other women in jail? Is she going to cry and talk about how upset she is when she gets teased by the corrections officers? “You hurt my feeeelings! I’m innocent! Don’t you know that I’m a celebrity?”

Update: here’s a clip of the surveillance video as shown on ET. From what I can tell it doesn’t show much except for in the preview that follows. Warning: this will launch sound about :38 seconds after the video starts playing. Mute it if you want to make sure that the sound doesn’t play.

Lindsay is shown on 2/24/11 with her “mom” Dina visiting a lawyer she used to work with. Credit: MAC/Fame.

Lindsay Lohan just had a hearing in the case of the purloined necklace/probation violation. It was in front of the same guy who seemed to go relatively lenient on her the last time, Judge Keith Schwartz, and TMZ was right in their prior coverage that he wants jail time for her – eventually. She wore a kind of low cut shirt and black suitjacket with a big stone necklace pointing at her cleavage. At least she was dressed more appropriately, but when she walked out I could see that she was wearing a tight white maybe miniskirt pants, since white signifies her “innocence.” The outcome was that another date was set for a hearing on March 10. The judge said that if Lindsay settles and cops a plea at that time she’s definitely going to jail. If she doesn’t settle, she’ll be seeing a different judge on a later date named Judge Sautner. This sh*t never ends. The highlights from Judge Scwartz’s speech include:

I’ve never met you before [your last hearing]. I treat all people the same

Number One, this case does involve jail time
If you plead in front of me, if this is resolved in front of me, you are going to jail, period. If the case settles here, you will be going to jail.

Number Two, if this case doesn’t resolve here… Judge Sautner will impose sentence.

There is going to be jail time in this case, the issue is what it is.

I don’t want you getting back into the system…

I want you to reach whatever potential you have and move on…

I would like to have additional psychological information…

Such as [seeing a therapist]

You need to get a reliable trustworthy and reasonable sponsor unrelated to any of your family members. I need somebody unrelated to you who is not moved by seeing anything other than you succeed…

You’re going to come back in front of me one more time.
If the case settles, that’s great…

The one thing you and your attorney have to understand is that the next time you see me on February 10 it’s either to settle or set another preliminary hearing.

So Lindsay squeaked by again and was seen smirking (screenshot above) when she realized that she wasn’t going to jail yet. All that talk about how she would go to jail at some point was lost to Lindsay, because she was smiling and thinking of her next fix.

TMZ explains it better than I can as I don’t get all the details in this case, but apparently if Lindsay doesn’t cop a plea she’s going to have to go to trial at some point, and that means up to a year in state prison.

TMZ broke the story this morning … the judge will throw Lindsay in jail if she accepts a plea bargain.

Judge Keith Schwartz told the famous defendant bluntly, “I don’t care that you’re Lindsay Lohan.”

Judge Schwartz did not say how much jail time Lindsay would do if she cops a plea.

And, Judge Schwartz wants a psychological evaluation that will help him understand what makes Lindsay tick and what particular sentence is appropriate.

The judge explained … if Lindsay pleads guilty or no contest, it will be an automatic admission she violated her probation.

And the judge announced what TMZ first reported … Deputy D.A. Danette Meyers made a formal offer to settle the case. Lindsay’s lawyer, Shawn Holley, will noodle over the offer before deciding, but the judge indicated Lindsay’s probably not going to accept the D.A.’s offer. As we reported, Meyers wants significant jail time.

If Lindsay doesn’t accept a plea, she’ll stand trial and if she’s found guilty she could get 1 year in state prison.

Lindsay is back in court on March 10. She has the option of pleading guilty and basically throwing herself at the court’s mercy.

[From TMZ]

I see her taking her chances on a trial and getting way more time behind bars than she would by pleading out. This is far from over.

Update: Michael Lohan is giving a press conference bitching about how Dina is enforcing her order of protection against him, and how she’s using her children as “ploys to mediate things and pawns.” He said that he hopes this goes to trial because all the evidence wasn’t turned over to Lindsay’s lawyer until recently. He said of potential jail time, “I don’t see Lindsay as a criminal. This is all a result of her addiction.”

It looks like Lindsay Lohan is planting stories in both TMZ and Radar Online. TMZ had a story over the weekend saying she would just happen to be spending Valentine’s day with her ex and the woman she had no idea she was moving next to, Samantha Ronson, but that they were “just friends” and planned to be at the same dinner party that night. Now Radar Online has a photo of Lindsay “sneaking out” of her accidental neighbor Sam’s house to return back to her adjacent rented townhouse on Valentine’s day. How did someone “happen” to catch Lindsay sneaking through the bushes home? Could Lindsay have perhaps told a paparazzo to be there and subsequently split the profits with him when they sold the photos to the highest bidder? Is Sam regretting not moving the hell out the minute Lindsay moved in?

In related news about Lindsay, Radar reports that there’s a star witness about to come forward in the case of the purloined necklace. A man is supposedly is going to testify that he wanted to buy it and was quoted a price of $800, not the $2,500 the store says it’s worth, which would make Lindsay’s crime a misdemeanor, not a felony. How convenient for Lindsay’s case and not at all suspicious. TMZ has a related story that the prosecutor believes the necklace is worth $2,500. I believe that Lindsay will squeak through yet again, as she’s done for the past several years. I could be pleasantly surprised, though.

Oh and after I wrote all that, a tip came in from reader Christina that Lindsay owes 200,000 euro, or around $270,000, for accepting a hefty appearance fee to go to the Vienna opera last year and then cancelling at the last minute. (To go shopping, natch.) The businessman who paid Lindsay to be his date, Richard Lugner, says she gave him about 10,000 euro back and he’s deciding whether to sue her for the rest. It’s unclear from the story whether the full fee he paid Lohan was 200,000 euro or whether he’s saying that he paid “below” 200,000 euro. Reports at the time had her being paid $150,000. Either way, it’s a hell of a lot of money and of course Lindsay absconded with it. This guy made the grave mistake of paying her upfront.

Lindsay is shown on 2/8 and 2/9/11. Credit: WENN.com

Kaiser and I were tuned in yesterday afternoon to see if Lindsay Lohan would finally get her comeuppance, but as you know by now she was simply given yet another chance in a lifetime filled with wasted chances. When Lindsay realized she wasn’t going to jail at that point she smirked involuntarily and I’m sure everything the judge told her about how she was just like everyone else was completely lost to her, since it’s not at all true. Lindsay wore a short tight white dress and told TMZ that it signified her “innocence,” which goes to show that she thinks just like a murderous bisexual stock character. Justice may eventually come limping after Lindsay, though. Lohan has another court date on February 23 and faces charges both for stealing the necklace and for violating probation for the umpteenth time. Oh and she’s back on Twitter of course.

She’s due back in court for Feb. 23. In addition to a maximum three years in prison for the theft charge, Lohan could be looking at jail time for possibly violating her probation from her 2007 DUI cases, which isn’t set to expire until Aug. 11.

Less than an hour after hitting the road, Lohan was checking her Twitter account, responding to a concerned-sounding tweet from Celebrity Rehab establisher Dr. Drew Pinsky. (Oddly, her first apparent tweet was a link to a photo of her and Kanye West, taken Feb. 4 at a dinner party for designer Giuseppe Zanotti, but that disappeared a few moments later.)

So what did the celebrity Twitterverse have to say about the embattled star.

“That lindsay lohan necklace is one crummy looking piece of jewelry for twenty five hundred. can barely see it,” quipped Howard Stern, a relative Twitter newcomer, having just signed up last week. “Felony grand theft? I would get an appraisal on that piece of junk.”

“I am mortified how @Lindsaylohan is getting attacked when she is so fragile and just establishing her sobriety. Not at all what she needs,” read the more serious tweet from Pinsky.

“@drdrew thank you for your support.. I appreciate it,” Lohan tweeted in response. And that post stayed put.

[From E! Online]

Is Lohan ever going to get serious jail time for her crimes, or will she continue to skate on the edge of the law, laughing, popping pills and pilfering things she thinks she should get for free? TMZ reports that it’s likely she’ll cop a plea that will allow her to avoid jail time. She just got more publicity for her latest crime than for anything she’s done professionally for years. If she wants to retain any sort of career she’s got a lot of work to do. Lindsay expects everything to come easy for her, though, and I doubt she’ll be able to make any sort of comeback. She’s just too entitled, too addicted, and too much of a narcissist.

Photo credit: WENN.com

I know this is totally going to ruin my day, because now I’ll be waiting for hours and hours, like a crackhead waiting for Crack Santa on Saint Crackhead’s Eve. So, yes, all media outlets are in agreement: Lindsay Lohan is going to be arraigned today on a charge of felony grand theft for her crack heist of a $2500 necklace. The arraignment will be held at 1:30 pm, Pacific (Crack) Standard, and Lindsay’s presence in court is required. I can already hear the crack wails now… but if that’s what I’m expecting, you know I won’t get it. Anyway, I’m already disappointed. TMZ announced that Lindsay won’t be handcuffed and dragged, kicking and screaming into a police car while Samantha Ronson points and laughs. There will be no “perp walk” – Lindsay is going to “surrender” at the courthouse when she comes in for her arraignment. Then she will have yet another booking photo taken (a new one!) and then she gets bail.

So… no jail, for now. The bail will likely be low, and Mother Crackhead will only have to hustle a little bit for the money. However, if convicted of the felony, Lindsay would end up going into a California State prison. I also think this “surrender” was probably pre-arranged. Lindsay’s lawyer Shawn Holley met with the prosecutor on Monday, and I suspect this is the arrangement that was negotiated.

Just a few more things – Mother Crackhead a “source” puts these words in Blohan’s mouth: “I honestly feel I did nothing wrong.” And “I’m pleading not guilty because I’m NOT.” Which is a telling double negative! Also, TMZ compiled a list of all of Lindsay’s known crack thievery but they didn’t even get to some of her most ingenious heists, like that one in Paris where she also “borrowed” some jewels – forever.

These are photos of Lindsay visiting the Santa Monica courthouse on Tuesday. She looks like hell, right?

Photos courtesy of Fame and WENN.

One of the first news stories I saw Monday morning was the breaking story about the Church of Scientology. The New Yorker has just published an exhaustive article on the Church/cult which is the culmination of ten months of research, including talking to high-profile people who were once involved with CoS. The 26-page article is here, at The New Yorker. I haven’t got the chance to read the whole thing, or even skim most of it. I’ve only managed to read the excerpts, like this one, where Josh Brolin talks about his brief flirtation with Xenu:

There are many celebrity adherents to Scientology — Josh Brolin isn’t one of them.

In a long feature about ‘Crash’ director and screenwriter Paul Haggis’ rejection of his longtime religion, The New Yorker spoke to star Josh Brolin about his brief and unsuccessful run-in with the group.

Running to the religion “in a time of desperation,” Brolin says he saw some… interesting things. One of them involved John Travolta “practicing Scientology” on Marlon Brando.

“I watched this process going on–it was very physical,” Brolin said. “I was thinking, ‘This is really f**ing bizarre! Then, after ten minutes, Brando opens his eyes and says, ‘That really helped. I actually feel different!’”

For the record, Travolta denies that it ever happened.

Haggis opens about how, as a troublemaking young man, he felt saved by Scientology, something that stars such as Kirstie Alley attested to, saying that it saved her from cocaine. Haggis, though, says that the Church had a fierce anti-gay slant, something that especially troubled him given both his belief in social justice and the members of the Church that are rumored to be gay.

[From Huffington Post]

Um, I totally believe that John Travolta was coming on to Marlon Brando. Did that strike anyone else? Like Travolta wanted to tag that ass. Anyway, Paul Haggis left CoS after the head of CoS’s San Diego office signed the Proposition 8 petition in 2008. Haggis spent months trying to get CoS to clarify their position on gay rights, to no avail, so he ended up “resigning” from the Church. Haggis also details his issues with certain policies and practices of CoS, including “disconnection” and the rumors of the organization’s civil rights violations on members. Speaking of, the FBI opened an investigation into CoS (or “Sea Org” as “the religious order” are called). The investigation was for human trafficking. Human trafficking cases are usually meant for prostitution, and specifically the enslavement of women for sexual or slave labor purposes. More from The New Yorker piece:

The laws regarding trafficking were built largely around forced prostitution, but they also pertain to slave labor. Under federal law, slavery is defined, in part, by the use of coercion, torture, starvation, imprisonment, threats, and psychological abuse. The California penal code lists several indicators that someone may be a victim of human trafficking: signs of trauma or fatigue; being afraid or unable to talk, because of censorship by others or security measures that prevent communication with others; working in one place without the freedom to move about; owing a debt to one’s employer; and not having control over identification documents. Those conditions echo the testimony of many former Sea Org members…

[From The New Yorker via Gawker]

So… Tom Cruise and John Travolta could be slaves, people. Well… I believe that they are brainwashed, and that there is probably a significant amount of “groupthink” going on, but is that a good enough excuse? At some point, doesn’t personal responsibility have to come into play? I have always believed that many actors join up with Scientology because they think it will help their careers, not because they believe in the “tenants” of CoS, whatever they may be (spa dong, high heels for men, contractually enforced marriages). Whatever.

Photos courtesy of WENN.