Kate at Baltimore Book Festival

Kate did a short cooking demo at the event this weekend. Here are some clips.

'Suite Life of Zack and Cody' child star defends restaurant job, calls rumors 'rude'

Dylan and Cole Sprouse were teen hearthrobs in the 2000's. Their Disney channel show broke records and made them household names for kids. They were the Mary Kate and Ashley of the modern era. For several years, they were the highest paid teenagers in the business, and at one point the richest teenage twins in the world, according to MSN. Dylan once called his rise to fame "scary" and very fast.

Dylan and Cole are 21 now, and Dylan has decided to leave acting, go to college at NYU and work in a restaurant (Cole goes to NYU too). Inevitably, the "rock bottom child star" rumors followed. Dylan was so offended by the gossip, he took to tumblr to set the record straight. Dylan called the comments about his new profession "pretty rude" and said that he is financially secure but wanted to try out a new job. He said being a host is "a way to try a new experience, working somewhat below the means I’m used to, as well as a way to socialize and get out of the house. I feel most comfortable when I’m working and doing something, to criticize someone of that is pretty odd. I will potentially return to acting someday, but in no way do I think any experience is a step down for me, but rather a new step in another direction."

Good for you, Dylan. There's nothing to be ashamed about when it comes to living a normal life and working hard.

Jon on The View

Jon stopped by to see Kate's BFFs today.

Kate on Katie Couric

Knee deep in her book tour, Kate stops by Katie Couric today. Check local listings.

Kate's book tour

Kate kicks off a week-long book tour today for Love is in the Mix with radio show appearances. Later in the week she will appear on the Today Show, Katie Couric, and do a few signings. Here's the schedule.

September 23 @ 9 - 10:30am - National Radio Satellite Tour
September 24 - Today Show
September 24 - Entertainment Tonight
September 24@ 7pm, Barnes & Noble, Staten Island, NY
September 25 - Katie Couric
September 25 - Inside Edition
September 25 - Extra
September 25 @ 7pm - Barnes & Noble, Paramus, NJ
September 27 & 28 - Baltimore Book Festival, MD
October 1 @ 7pm - Chapters Bookstore, Yorkdale Mall, Toronto, Canada
October 1 - Roger, Darren & Marilyn Show - CHUM Radio
October 1 - The Marilyn Dennis Show
October 2 @ 8 - 8:20am - The Roz & Mocha Show on KISS 92.5
October 2 @ 9:45am - 12:15pm - The Steve & Chris Show

Jon in Reading Eagle

"I'm in a great mood right now.  I live in a very comfortable house. It's very secluded and private. And that's security for my children. They know it's safe there. Obviously there's a lot of things going on in the realm of things. But, I'm fine with everything. Because I know what I know. I know what the truth is." 



http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=513590

Robert files Answer to Kate's lawsuit

Robert's attorney, Martin Garbus

Author Robert Hoffman has hired legendary First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus to represent him. His Answer was filed yesterday.

Garbus is asserting the defenses of statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of action, and first amendment protections under opinion, factual statements and matters of public concern. Garbus has defended Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Robert Redford, Michael Moore, and numerous major First Amendment cases including the famous Ashton v. Kentucky case in 1966, now in every Constitutional Law textbook.

Here is his answer, courtesy of Jon's attorney Shawn Tuma:

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________ )
KATE GOSSELIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JONATHAN GOSSELIN, ROBERT HOFFMAN, ) and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Case No. 13 Civ. 4989 (JLS)

ROBERT HOFFMAN’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant Robert Hoffman (“Hoffman”), through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the allegations of the Complaint, dated August 26, 2013 (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, with the following Answer:
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
1. Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets, admits that defendant Jonathan Gosselin (“Jonathan”) had been married to plaintiff, admits that plaintiff and Jonathan are divorced, and admits that plaintiff and Jonathan starred in a popular television reality show called “Jon and Kate Plus 8” or “Kate Plus 8” from in or around 2007 to in or around 2011.
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint.
3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman is an adult individual.

{00011257.DOC;1}

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 13

4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. law to the
6. law to the
7. law to the
8. law to the
9.

10. Admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
    
11. Admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
    
12. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
    

of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

Denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.

Admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

{00011257.DOC;1} 2

{00011257.DOC;1}

3

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 13

17. Denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
    
18. Denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and refers all questions
    

of law to the Court.
19. Denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admits that plaintiff is a celebrity and that certain information about her may be of value.
20. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. Denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman and Jonathan have a friendship with one another.

26. Denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
    
27. Denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
    
28. Denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint, except denies knowledge
    

or information sufficient to form a belief concerning Jonathan’s publications, if any. 29. Denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4

Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 13

30. Denies the allegations of paragraph 30 legally obtained certain information of public interest disposed of by plaintiff.

31. Denies the allegations of paragraph 31
    
32. Denies the allegations of paragraph 32
    
33. Denies the allegations of paragraph 33
    
34. Denies the allegations of paragraph 34
    

of the Complaint, except admits that he about plaintiff, including information
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint, except admits that he

wrote a book about plaintiff entitled “Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled the World”.

35. Denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
    
36. Denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
    
37. Denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
    
38. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Complaint.
39. Denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
40. Denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
41. Denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

{00011257.DOC;1} 4

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 13

42. Denies the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
43. Denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

47. Denies the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
    
48. Denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
    
49. Denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
    
50. Denies the allegations of paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
    
51. Denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
    
52. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 51 of the Complaint.

{00011257.DOC;1} 5

{00011257.DOC;1}

6

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 13

53. Denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
54. Denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
55. Denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
56. Denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
57. Denies the allegations of paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
58. Denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
59. Denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
60. Denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

{00011257.DOC;1}

7

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 13

61. Denies the allegations of paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.

62. Denies the allegations of paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
    
63. Denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
    
64. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 64 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63 of the Complaint.
65. Denies the allegations of paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
66. Denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
67. Denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
68. Denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
69. Denies the allegations of paragraph 69 of the Complaint.

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 13

70. Denies the allegations of paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
71. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 71 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint.
72. Denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
73. Denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
74. Denies the allegations of paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
75. Denies the allegations of paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.

76. Denies the allegations of paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
    
77. Denies the allegations of paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
    

all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.

{00011257.DOC;1} 8

{00011257.DOC;1}

9

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 13

78. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 78 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 77 of the Complaint.
79. Denies the allegations of paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.

80. Denies the allegations of paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
    
81. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 81 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 80 of the Complaint.
82. Denies the allegations of paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §4120.
83. Denies the allegations of paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §8315.

84. Denies the allegations of paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
    
85. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 85 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 84 of the Complaint.

86. Denies the allegations of paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
    
87. Denies the allegations of paragraph 87 of the Complaint.
    
88. Denies the allegations of paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
    

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 13

89. Denies the allegations of paragraph 89 of the Complaint.
    
90. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 90 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 89 of the Complaint.

91. Denies the allegations of paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
    
92. Denies the allegations of paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
    
93. Denies the allegations of paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
    
94. Denies the allegations of paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
    
95. Denies the allegations of paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
    
96. Denies the allegations of paragraph 96 of the Complaint.
    
97. Denies the allegations of paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
    
98. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 98 of the Complaint,
    

repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 97 of the Complaint.
99. Denies the allegations of paragraph 99 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the common law of Pennsylvania with respect to privacy.

100. Denies the allegations of paragraph 100 of the Complaint.
     First Affirmative Defense
     
101. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
     Second Affirmative Defense
     
102. The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by governing statutes of limitations.
     Third Affirmative Defense
     

{00011257.DOC;1}

10

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 13

103. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the truth of any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
104. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the grounds that any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff constitute constitutionally protected statements of opinion.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
105. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part on the basis of the qualified and conditional privilege with respect to reporting, commentary and statements by defendant on matters of public interest.

{00011257.DOC;1} 11

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 13

WHEREFORE, defendant requests judgment dismissing the Complaint and awarding to defendant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

/s/ James P. Golden______________
James P. Golden
I.D. Nos. 32169
HAMBURG & GOLDEN, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3310 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1443 (215) 255-8590 goldenjp@hamburg-golden.com
Martin Garbus, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Brendan R. Marx, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Eaton & VanWinkle, LLP
3 Park Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10016 bmarx@evw.com MGarbus@evw.com Telephone: (212) 779-9910 Facsimile: (212) 779-9928

Dated: September 19, 2013

{00011257.DOC;1} 12

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James P. Golden, certify that the foregoing answer has been filed electronically and is now available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and that the answer has been served on September 19, 2013, by email and regular mail.

A. Jordan Rushie, Esquire Mulvihill & Rushie LLC
The Fishtown Lawyer
2424 E. York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125 Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
Marc J. Randazza, Esquire Randazza Legal Group 3625 S. Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kate Gosselin
Shawn E. Tuma, Esquire BrittonTuma
7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024 stuma@brittontuma.com
Richard L. Orwig, Esquire Orwig Law Offices
2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001 West Lawn, PA 19609 rlorwig@orwiglaw.com
Attorneys for defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin
Dated: September 19, 2013

/s/ James P. Golden JAMES P. GOLDEN

{00011257.DOC;1} 

Jon files motion to dismiss Kate's lawsuit

Jon's attorney, Shawn Tuma

Attorney and computer fraud expert Shawn Tuma's fantastic Federal Rules of Court 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss can be read in full here (if the link doesn't work trying reading the mirror on our site). Tuma rips Kate's initial complaint to bits, explaining why the lawsuit fails on multiple grounds, including statute of limitations, and accusations the lawsuit is a fishing expedition and doesn't come anywhere close to meeting all the elements of the various causes of action alleged. 

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/09/19/jon-motion-to-dismi

ss-9-18-13/jon-motion-to-dismiss-9-18-13.pdf

http://www.realitytvkids.com/2013/08/case-513-cv-04989-jls-document-3-2.html

"The timeline of the case is straightforward. In 2009, Plaintiff was aware of allegations that “Jon Gosselin 'hacked' into her e-mails, phone, and online accounts,” she was profoundly disturbed by them, and she was “carefully considering all of her legal options regarding this matter, and she [would] pursue them if and when the time is right."5 Now, roughly four years later, Plaintiff has apparently determined that the time is right. Indeed, the Complaint was filed one month prior to the release of her new cookbook. However, all of Plaintiff’s claims, except for the Identity Theft claim, are governed by a statute of limitations of two years or less and are time-barred. These seven claims should be dismissed with prejudice."

'I've never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always just lucky to have a job. And every job I had was a stepping stone to my next job, and I never quit my job until I had my next job. And so opportunities look a lot like work.'

Ashton Kutcher's profoundly honest, tough-love speech in an unlikely venue was something every helicoptered kid needed to hear. And maybe some adults, too.

Don't waste your money on Jobs, but listen to this speech.

"I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work. When I was thirteen I had my first job with my dad carrying shingles up to the roof. And then I got a job washing dishes at a restaurant. And then I got a job in a grocery store deli. And then I got a job at a factory sweeping Cherrio dust off the ground. And I've never had a job in my life that I was better than.  I was always just lucky to have a job.  And every job I had was a stepping stone to my next job, and I never quit my job until I had my next job.  And so opportunities look a lot like work."

Tony's new partner: Guts of steel

Leah Remini spoke up when she saw something she knew was wrong. She was outcast by Scientology for it, but praised by others as courageous and a hero. 

Dancing With the Stars kicks off again this month, and Tony Dovolani's partner couldn't be more of a firecracker. And an inspiration. Forty-three-year old Leah Remini has had steady work in Hollywood since she was 13 years old, and eventually, like many seasoned stars, found her way to the Church of Scientology. For years she was a devoted follower, until she started seeing some things that just weren't right. When she tried to say something about it, she ignited a war with the church.

Here is a summary of what happened this summer, from the L.A. Times:

Leah Remini made headlines in July when she publicly left the Church of Scientology. In August she filed a missing persons report for church leader David Miscavige's wife, Shelly, who allegedly hasn't been seen in public for six years.

"We can confirm that the missing person report has been taken, and that's all the information we have at this time," a Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson told Us Weekly.

TMZ confirmed that an ongoing investigation into Miscavige's whereabouts is underway. LAPD did not say whether Remini had any connection to the case, but a source told the site that Remini had filed the report shortly after cutting ties with the church last month.

Previous reports indicated that the "King of Queens" star left the church because it allegedly bars members from questioning leaders' management and reportedly forces them to "disconnect" from family members deemed "suppressive persons" if they choose to leave the church.

Remini told People that "no one is going to tell me how I need to think, no one is going to tell me who I can, and cannot, talk to."

Any previous tension Remini may have had with the church is surely being exacerbated amid these most recent reports.

In the past, Remini was allegedly derided by Tommy Davis, the former head of the Scientology Celebrity Centre, for asking about Shelly Miscavige's whereabouts at Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' wedding in 2006. The incident was among the alleged reasons that Remini broke ties with the church. Davis reportedly scolded her and told her she didn't have the "rank" to ask about Shelly.

Former Village Voice editor Tony Ortega runs the Scientology blog Underground Bunker, which chronicles the church's inner workings. Ortega, whose reliability has been denounced several times by the church, reported that Remini filed the report recently. He also said that in 2006 Shelly was transferred to a "secret compound near Lake Arrowhead in the mountains above Los Angeles." The place is the headquarters to the Church of Spiritual Technology and is home to about a dozen Scientologists who are "completely cut off from the outside world," he said.

The church's response was that this is "harassment."

Tony's partner is a breath of fresh air. The only bully here is Scientology.