Probably pawned that ring first chance she got..
EXC: Danny Masterson's wife Bijou Phillips seen WITHOUT wedding ring
The 43-year-old put on a carefree display as she met a female friend for coffee in Santa Ynez, California, earlier today. She kept it casual for the outing but looked to be in good spirits.www.dailymail.co.uk
Danny Masterson (That 70's Show) Arrested And Charged With Rape Dating As Far Back As 2003.....
- Thread starter Simply_Black
- Start date
Bijou Phillips Requests Spousal Support from Danny Masterson in Prison as Divorce Docs Indicate Exes Had No Prenup
Bijou Phillips filed for divorce from the 'That '70s Show' actor Danny Masterson on Monday after he was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison and requested to 'terminate the court's ability to grant support' to him
Do Danny Masterson and Bijou Phillips have a prenup amid costly spousal support request? All we know
Bijou filed from divorce from the That 70s Show alum after he was sentenced to 30 years in prison
www.hellomagazine.com
Once it's out though, it's out, and if you're a public figure with a Q rating that you care about, it's probably better to bite the bullet and apologize. Their apology wasn't very well scripted though.
They could have just been like "hey, we wrote the letters for our friend to try to help him out and despite his conviction we want him to serve as little time as possible, so deal with it people, cause some of you would do the same". ...but that would have gone over even worse and would cost them more money than this shit already has.
.
They could have just been like "hey, we wrote the letters for our friend to try to help him out and despite his conviction we want him to serve as little time as possible, so deal with it people, cause some of you would do the same". ...but that would have gone over even worse and would cost them more money than this shit already has.
.
it was stupid to begin with
he ws convicted already
those letters werent gonna do shit
i can see if it was before that
Do Danny Masterson and Bijou Phillips have a prenup amid costly spousal support request? All we know
Bijou filed from divorce from the That 70s Show alum after he was sentenced to 30 years in prison
Convicted rapist Danny Masterson had been living apart from wife
Phillips and the couple's daughter, 9, had been living apart from the convicted rapist since 2018 according to papers she filed in their divorce.
The letters are for leniency in sentencing.
Bijou Phillips seen after cutting ties with Danny Masterson
Bijou Phillips was seen looking strained on Tuesday, as she was pictured for the first time since her estranged husband Danny Masterson was expelled from Scientology.
Danny Masterson Signs Over Full Custody of Daughter Fianna, 9, to Estranged Wife Bijou Phillips
Danny Masterson is signing over full custody of daughter Fianna, 9, to his estranged wife Bijou Phillips. The 'That '70s Show' actor was found guilty on two counts of rape at his retrial in May and was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.
Danny Masterson requests ex Bijou Phillips receive custody of minor daughter in divorce
Bijou Phillips filed for divorce from Danny Masterson in September and requested full custody of their minor daughter after he was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison, and the actor has now filed his own divorce request.
Danny Masterson: How Church of Scientology Reportedly Reacted to His Rape Convictions
Danny Masterson was affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Here’s what allegedly happened with the mysterious, powerful organization after the fallout of the actor’s rape conviction…
hollywoodlife.com
Danny Masterson Branded A ‘Suppressive Person’ After Being EXPELLED From The Church Of Scientology
Embattled actor Danny Masterson‘s problems keep piling up as it has been revealed that he has been kicked out of the Church of Scientology and labeled a “suppressive person” by the organization. He is facing a 30-year sentence in prison for two counts of rape. His wife, Bijou Phillips, has also...
Danny Masterson Grants Estranged Wife Full Custody Of Daughter After His Rape Conviction
Bijou Phillips filed for divorce in September and has since received full legal and physical custody of their 9-year-old daughter, Fianna.
Danny Masterson: How Church of Scientology Reportedly Reacted to His Rape Convictions
Danny Masterson was affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Here’s what allegedly happened with the mysterious, powerful organization after the fallout of the actor’s rape conviction…
Danny Masterson Branded A ‘Suppressive Person’ After Being EXPELLED From The Church Of Scientology
Embattled actor Danny Masterson‘s problems keep piling up as it has been revealed that he has been kicked out of the Church of Scientology and labeled a “suppressive person” by the organization. He is facing a 30-year sentence in prison for two counts of rape. His wife, Bijou Phillips, has also...www.yahoo.com
Danny Masterson Grants Estranged Wife Full Custody Of Daughter After His Rape Conviction
Bijou Phillips filed for divorce in September and has since received full legal and physical custody of their 9-year-old daughter, Fianna.
I saw a video saying this might not be true and instead could be a tactic to distance themselves from him before the civil case.
Danny Masterson’s appeal is likely to focus, in part, on the introduction of uncharged bad acts witnesses and prosecutors being allowed to directly argue that he drugged his victims. What do you make of those arguments and what do you think his chances of success are?
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Click to expand the Mega Menu
The Hollywood Reporter homepage
SUBSCRIBE
THR, Esq
BY WINSTON CHO
Plus Icon
DECEMBER 26, 2023 7:35AM
'Hot Bench' COURTESY OF CBS
Logo text
The Hot Bench judges are no strangers to conflict.
Every week, the three-judge tribunal presides over small-claims cases ranging from tame disputes over property damage to wild clashes over accusations of sabotage between longtime friends.
Judges Michael Corriero, Rachel Juarez and Yodit Tewolde earned a wide variety of legal bona fides before joining the CBS series that hails from Judge Judy Sheindlin. Corriero served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, a criminal defense attorney and a judge for 28 years; Juarez worked at biglaw firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan prior to founding a family law practice specializing in the representation of high net worth individuals; and Tewolde boasts extensive experience in criminal law from her years as an Assistant District Attorney in Dallas County and criminal defense attorney.
GENERAL NEWS
The most recent episode of the series featured a woman suing a car shop owner for refusing to return new tires and rims she installed on the vehicle, which was repossessed. Ultimately, the judges ruled in favor of the defendant.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s hard for us to believe that you met your burden of proof, given your failure to produce in this courtroom receipts — just simple receipts that you paid the payments on time and that you paid them in full,” said Corriero. “Therefore, your case is dismissed.”
While no case is too small or too outlandish for the judges, they’re also familiar with high-profile litigation and closely monitor matters in off-camera courtrooms. The panel sat down with The Hollywood Reporter for a wide-ranging conversation on Hollywood cases including Jonathan Majors’ conviction, Danny Masterson’s chances on appeal and Alec Baldwin’s potential criminal liability over the shooting on the set of Rust — and share why criminal procedurals like Law & Order are warping jurors’ expectations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Whose lawyers in a high-profile civil or criminal case this year impressed you?
Rachel Juarez: One of the things that stood out to me this year was how in Gwyneth Paltrow‘s trial, she got what appeared to be some excellent legal advice to be herself when she testified. I think there was a general sense that the jury might not like Gwyneth Paltrow. They might see her as privileged. They might see her as unrelatable. Instead of trying to make herself relatable, or be something she wasn’t, it seemed pretty clear that she was told to ‘just be yourself.’ When it comes to credibility, I think that was huge because that was a case that depended on evaluating two different people’s account of an event. I think the jury believed hers and, in part, that was because she came off as authentic, even if not perhaps relatable, and truthful.
Gwyneth Paltrow testifies during her trial on March 24, 2023, in Park City, Utah. RICK BOWMER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Yodit Tewolde: Juries are perceptive. They can pick up on disingenuous energy. It doesn’t matter if you won an Oscar or not. That’s been tried before with celebrity cases where a celebrity who’s an actor will go up on the stand and think that they can act their way into making a jury believe their version. It’s just not going to work. Not when you have several of your peers watching every single thing that you’re doing. You can’t get away with it.
ADVERTISEMENT
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Majors’ conviction?
Michael Corriero: I thought the verdict is a clear example of the jury’s role as sacrosanct. There was an incredible amount of publicity from both sides on what happened and what didn’t. The jury was able to cut through all of that and made some very crucial distinctions. For example, he was charged with intentional assault as the top count — intending to cause a physical injury of his accuser — and was found guilty of reckless assault, meaning that the jury felt that whatever he did it was not intended to cause a physical injury. The jury really took the time to cut through both the prosecution’s theory and defense theory to come up with a solution which they felt was fair just under the circumstances.
Juarez: I agree with Michael. The jury really looked carefully at the charges and the evidence and carefully decided that the evidence matched one of the charges but not the others.
Actor Jonathan Majors and his girlfriend, Meagan Good, flanked by his lawyer Priya Chaudhry (R). ALEXI ROSENFELD/GETTY IMAGES
Text messages from a previous alleged incident were shown to the jury and it seemed that Mr. Majors’ attorney opened the door to that on cross-examination. What are your thoughts on what happened there, and what impact do you think those texts had on the jury?
Tewolde: I think she opened the door, if I’m not mistaken, when she was cross-examining the accuser and was really pressing her on her vague answers to law enforcement. “Well, didn’t you say this, but then you meant this or why did you not say this?” And the judge allowed the prosecution to provide more context for the jury as to why she was so vague. That’s when the older text message came through about her not wanting to really tell the truth.
Corriero: Probably the worst thing a losing criminal defense lawyer would want to hear — and I was a criminal defense lawyer for seven years before I became a judge and after I left the prosecutor’s office — is that you opened the door to incriminating evidence. So, I’m not going there because this question of the parameters of cross-examination goes directly to the skill level of an experienced trial lawyer. Sometimes we walk a razor’s edge in cross-examination. This is a very delicate area, and I don’t know how it played out. I wouldn’t be comfortable in saying that she opened the door. It may very well have been part of her strategy to get it all out there.
Juarez: I know the big takeaway was he was convicted on two of the counts, but he was also exonerated on two of the accounts. That would suggest that these text messages didn’t sow anger and offend the jury [to the extent that] they just threw the book at him. So, again, it’s kind of hard to know if this opening the door type situation was deliberate. Did she know that these would probably come in but felt that the trade-off on cross-examination was worth it? Or perhaps it wasn’t part of a broader strategy because the defense wasn’t entirely unsuccessful. We can’t ignore that.
Danny Masterson’s appeal is likely to focus, in part, on the introduction of uncharged bad acts witnesses and prosecutors being allowed to directly argue that he drugged his victims. What do you make of those arguments and what do you think his chances of success are?
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Danny Masterson stands with his lawyers Thomas Mesereau and Sharon Appelbaum as he is arraigned on rape charges at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on September 18, 2020 in Los Angeles. LUCY NICHOLSON – POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Corriero: From a judicial perspective, these kinds of questions about whether or not to admit evidence of uncharged similar bad acts are fundamentally difficult, especially in the context in which they arrived in the trial. For example, in the [Harvey] Weinstein case this is a major issue on appeal. He was convicted, in part, on evidence that there were other women who were preyed upon in a similar fashion. He was never convicted for those prior acts. Some of them are due to the statute of limitations, yet the evidence came in during the course of the trial. Now the trial judge at that point has to [deal] with the balancing act because, generally speaking, evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible. Why? Because you can’t attempt to prove that the person is guilty of this crime because he did something bad in the past. However, if that evidence explains in some way what happened then it could be relevant. But these are very, very difficult issues to resolve, and the appellate courts have always had issues with them, as well as judges.
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Click to expand the Mega Menu
The Hollywood Reporter homepage
SUBSCRIBE
THR, Esq
‘Hot Bench’ Judges on Jonathan Majors, Gwyneth Paltrow and What’s Wrong With ‘Law & Order’
The stars of the 'Judge Judy' spinoff talk about Hollywood's biggest legal dramas of the year.BY WINSTON CHO
Plus Icon
DECEMBER 26, 2023 7:35AM
- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Flipboard
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
'Hot Bench' COURTESY OF CBS
Logo text
The Hot Bench judges are no strangers to conflict.
Every week, the three-judge tribunal presides over small-claims cases ranging from tame disputes over property damage to wild clashes over accusations of sabotage between longtime friends.
Judges Michael Corriero, Rachel Juarez and Yodit Tewolde earned a wide variety of legal bona fides before joining the CBS series that hails from Judge Judy Sheindlin. Corriero served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, a criminal defense attorney and a judge for 28 years; Juarez worked at biglaw firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan prior to founding a family law practice specializing in the representation of high net worth individuals; and Tewolde boasts extensive experience in criminal law from her years as an Assistant District Attorney in Dallas County and criminal defense attorney.
Related Stories
GENERAL NEWS
Jonathan Majors Unlikely to Get Jail Time, Could Appeal on Use of Texts, Lawyers Say
The most recent episode of the series featured a woman suing a car shop owner for refusing to return new tires and rims she installed on the vehicle, which was repossessed. Ultimately, the judges ruled in favor of the defendant.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s hard for us to believe that you met your burden of proof, given your failure to produce in this courtroom receipts — just simple receipts that you paid the payments on time and that you paid them in full,” said Corriero. “Therefore, your case is dismissed.”
While no case is too small or too outlandish for the judges, they’re also familiar with high-profile litigation and closely monitor matters in off-camera courtrooms. The panel sat down with The Hollywood Reporter for a wide-ranging conversation on Hollywood cases including Jonathan Majors’ conviction, Danny Masterson’s chances on appeal and Alec Baldwin’s potential criminal liability over the shooting on the set of Rust — and share why criminal procedurals like Law & Order are warping jurors’ expectations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Whose lawyers in a high-profile civil or criminal case this year impressed you?
Rachel Juarez: One of the things that stood out to me this year was how in Gwyneth Paltrow‘s trial, she got what appeared to be some excellent legal advice to be herself when she testified. I think there was a general sense that the jury might not like Gwyneth Paltrow. They might see her as privileged. They might see her as unrelatable. Instead of trying to make herself relatable, or be something she wasn’t, it seemed pretty clear that she was told to ‘just be yourself.’ When it comes to credibility, I think that was huge because that was a case that depended on evaluating two different people’s account of an event. I think the jury believed hers and, in part, that was because she came off as authentic, even if not perhaps relatable, and truthful.
Gwyneth Paltrow testifies during her trial on March 24, 2023, in Park City, Utah. RICK BOWMER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Yodit Tewolde: Juries are perceptive. They can pick up on disingenuous energy. It doesn’t matter if you won an Oscar or not. That’s been tried before with celebrity cases where a celebrity who’s an actor will go up on the stand and think that they can act their way into making a jury believe their version. It’s just not going to work. Not when you have several of your peers watching every single thing that you’re doing. You can’t get away with it.
ADVERTISEMENT
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Majors’ conviction?
Michael Corriero: I thought the verdict is a clear example of the jury’s role as sacrosanct. There was an incredible amount of publicity from both sides on what happened and what didn’t. The jury was able to cut through all of that and made some very crucial distinctions. For example, he was charged with intentional assault as the top count — intending to cause a physical injury of his accuser — and was found guilty of reckless assault, meaning that the jury felt that whatever he did it was not intended to cause a physical injury. The jury really took the time to cut through both the prosecution’s theory and defense theory to come up with a solution which they felt was fair just under the circumstances.
Juarez: I agree with Michael. The jury really looked carefully at the charges and the evidence and carefully decided that the evidence matched one of the charges but not the others.
Actor Jonathan Majors and his girlfriend, Meagan Good, flanked by his lawyer Priya Chaudhry (R). ALEXI ROSENFELD/GETTY IMAGES
Text messages from a previous alleged incident were shown to the jury and it seemed that Mr. Majors’ attorney opened the door to that on cross-examination. What are your thoughts on what happened there, and what impact do you think those texts had on the jury?
Tewolde: I think she opened the door, if I’m not mistaken, when she was cross-examining the accuser and was really pressing her on her vague answers to law enforcement. “Well, didn’t you say this, but then you meant this or why did you not say this?” And the judge allowed the prosecution to provide more context for the jury as to why she was so vague. That’s when the older text message came through about her not wanting to really tell the truth.
Corriero: Probably the worst thing a losing criminal defense lawyer would want to hear — and I was a criminal defense lawyer for seven years before I became a judge and after I left the prosecutor’s office — is that you opened the door to incriminating evidence. So, I’m not going there because this question of the parameters of cross-examination goes directly to the skill level of an experienced trial lawyer. Sometimes we walk a razor’s edge in cross-examination. This is a very delicate area, and I don’t know how it played out. I wouldn’t be comfortable in saying that she opened the door. It may very well have been part of her strategy to get it all out there.
Juarez: I know the big takeaway was he was convicted on two of the counts, but he was also exonerated on two of the accounts. That would suggest that these text messages didn’t sow anger and offend the jury [to the extent that] they just threw the book at him. So, again, it’s kind of hard to know if this opening the door type situation was deliberate. Did she know that these would probably come in but felt that the trade-off on cross-examination was worth it? Or perhaps it wasn’t part of a broader strategy because the defense wasn’t entirely unsuccessful. We can’t ignore that.
Danny Masterson’s appeal is likely to focus, in part, on the introduction of uncharged bad acts witnesses and prosecutors being allowed to directly argue that he drugged his victims. What do you make of those arguments and what do you think his chances of success are?
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Danny Masterson stands with his lawyers Thomas Mesereau and Sharon Appelbaum as he is arraigned on rape charges at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on September 18, 2020 in Los Angeles. LUCY NICHOLSON – POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Corriero: From a judicial perspective, these kinds of questions about whether or not to admit evidence of uncharged similar bad acts are fundamentally difficult, especially in the context in which they arrived in the trial. For example, in the [Harvey] Weinstein case this is a major issue on appeal. He was convicted, in part, on evidence that there were other women who were preyed upon in a similar fashion. He was never convicted for those prior acts. Some of them are due to the statute of limitations, yet the evidence came in during the course of the trial. Now the trial judge at that point has to [deal] with the balancing act because, generally speaking, evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible. Why? Because you can’t attempt to prove that the person is guilty of this crime because he did something bad in the past. However, if that evidence explains in some way what happened then it could be relevant. But these are very, very difficult issues to resolve, and the appellate courts have always had issues with them, as well as judges.
Danny Masterson's First Mug Shot Released as He's Transferred to State Prison
Danny Masterson's first mug shot released after transfer to California state prison.
www.tmz.com
Danny Masterson admitted to state prison after rape conviction
Former "That '70s Show" actor Danny Masterson was admitted to state prison on Wednesday after being convicted of raping two women.
Danny Masterson’s first mugshot released as he’s transferred to state prison after rape conviction
The “That 70s Show” alum filed to appeal his rape conviction last month.
nypost.com
Back in May 2021 ...
pagesix.com
Danny Masterson posts courthouse selfie before rape case hearing
Despite Danny Masterson’s jokey mood outside the courtroom, things got serious once the proceedings began.
pagesix.com
how much time he got hpBack in May 2021 ...
Danny Masterson posts courthouse selfie before rape case hearing
Despite Danny Masterson’s jokey mood outside the courtroom, things got serious once the proceedings began.
Danny Masterson - Wikipedia
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson begins lengthy sentence at North Kern State Prison
Actor Danny Masterson, known for his role in the sitcom “That ‘70s Show,’ was received by the North Kern State Prison on Wednesday, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabil…
ktla.com
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson gets 30 years to life in prison for rapes of 2 women
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge sentenced “That ’70s Show” show star Danny Masterson to 30 years to life in prison Thursday for raping two women, giving them some relief after they spoke in court about …
ktla.com
hee got 30 years?? hotdamnnDanny Masterson - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson begins lengthy sentence at North Kern State Prison
Actor Danny Masterson, known for his role in the sitcom “That ‘70s Show,’ was received by the North Kern State Prison on Wednesday, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabil…
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson gets 30 years to life in prison for rapes of 2 women
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge sentenced “That ’70s Show” show star Danny Masterson to 30 years to life in prison Thursday for raping two women, giving them some relief after they spoke in court about …
Wonder if Ashton,Mila,Topher,Laura and Wilmer will go and visit...Danny Masterson - Wikipedia
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson begins lengthy sentence at North Kern State Prison
Actor Danny Masterson, known for his role in the sitcom “That ‘70s Show,’ was received by the North Kern State Prison on Wednesday, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabil…
‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson gets 30 years to life in prison for rapes of 2 women
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge sentenced “That ’70s Show” show star Danny Masterson to 30 years to life in prison Thursday for raping two women, giving them some relief after they spoke in court about …
They'll go and visit, then make some half-hearted social media apology as to why they visited.
Like some Hollywood bitches.
Apparently Topher never hung out with the rest of the cast and never came to his defense like the others.
.
.
Weinstein effect - Wikipedia
The Weinstein Effect: Harvey Weinstein scandal sparks movements in Hollywood and beyond
This was the week the Harvey Weinstein scandal expanded. Its effects can now be observed in movements against sexual harassment in the fashion industry, in politics and in other fields.
money.cnn.com
These Are the Powerful Men Feeling the Harvey Weinstein Effect
Amazon’s Roy Price, NBC’s Mark Halperin, Nickelodeon’s Chris Savino, and more big names in entertainment and media have fallen in Weinstein’s wake, after allegations of sexual harassment and assault.
Here's a growing list of men accused of sexual misconduct since Weinstein
Lorin Stein, Nelly and Roman Polanski are among the latest public figures to be accused of sexual misconduct.
www.nbcnews.com
Danny Masterson reportedly denied bail by judge
Danny Masterson has reportedly been denied bail. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge says that the 'That ‘70s Show' actor 'has every incentive to flee.'
Danny Masterson reportedly denied bail by judge
Danny Masterson has reportedly been denied bail. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge says that the 'That ‘70s Show' actor 'has every incentive to flee.'ew.com
Danny Masterson's Ex Bijou Phillips 'Triggered' by His Move to Maximum Security Prison Where Inmate Was Beheaded
Bijou Phillips is 'triggered' by Danny Masterson's recent move to the prison where a sadistic beheading took place.