Hey, there! Log in / Register

DA: Scientology critic no criminal harasser

The Suffolk County DA's office today dropped a charge of criminal harassment against Gregg Housh, 32, of Woburn, related to protests outside the Church of Scientology's Boston headquarters.

However, a Boston Municipal Court judge continued for one year charges against Housh of disturbing an assembly of worship and disturbing the peace. The ruling means Housh has to stay away from the church's current headquarters and its planned new offices in the South End or the case could be brought to trial, according to the Suffolk County DA's office. In a statement, the office explained the decision to drop the criminal-harassment charge:

After a review of the evidence, prosecutors determined they could not meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on this charge [of criminal harassment] and could not in good faith move forward with it.

Had the case gone to trial, prosecutors would have introduced evidence and testimony to show that Housh and others entered the Church of Scientology's Beacon Street building in a boisterous manner during a March 1 protest, disturbing the proceedings and alarming those inside.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Housh and others entered the Church of Scientology's Beacon Street building in a boisterous manner during a March 1 protest, disturbing the proceedings and alarming those inside.

Since they entered the church and were disruptive, I agree with the disposition. If they had stood on the sidewalk out front, been peaceful and not obstructed passage, then I would be pissed about the disposition. Everyone is entitled to the same rights under the law, even Scientologists, holocaust deniers, and neo-nazis and neocons.

up
Voting closed 0

Anonymous comments on Anonymous. Film at 11!

up
Voting closed 0

It took me a moment, that anonymous and I are not one in the same.

up
Voting closed 0

Some of the group did. He did not. The ONLY reason he was brought up on charges was because he filed his name with the city in order to reserve public space on the Common for a gathering of Anonymous. This is a public filing and Scientology's lawyers used it to finally get a name of someone in Anonymous here in Boston. They then turned their full attention to him because he is the only person they had any information to go on.

up
Voting closed 0

I wasn't there. I took my cue the from Suffolk County DA's statement. Can you find the source that says differently?

up
Voting closed 0

That was the whole point of the protest.

Heh, that joke won't get old any time soon.

Here's the original thread here at UHub.

up
Voting closed 0

obvious harassment is obvious

up
Voting closed 0

They did not disrupt religious services, because there are no religious services there to disrupt. Also, Housh didn't go into the building, though some of his friends did.

up
Voting closed 0

was all about Gregg Housh, Anonymous, and Scientology. Read it here: Battling Scientology

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks Ron.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

is pretty vague. I hope the court order is more specific (e.g. stay N feet away from)

up
Voting closed 0

Given how nonsensical this whole thing is, I hope they give him the distance in smoots.

up
Voting closed 0

The Massachusetts Lawyer blog reports today that "On Oct. 22, Judge Thomas C. Horgan imposed a one-year CWOF (Continuance Without a Finding) against Gregg Housh, who had been charged with disturbing an assembly of worship and disturbing the peace. As part of the plea, Housh was ordered to stay away from the Back Bay headquarters of the Church of Scientology and its new headquarters in Boston’s South End."

Gregg was presented just recently in The Phoenix as "an Internet activist and provocateur, is not an easy guy to characterize. A member of a group that calls itself “Anonymous,” Housh is pitted in what appears to be an escalating rift with the CoS." Looks like he lost it.

I wonder what made him admitting enough facts to warrant a finding of guilt on charges. Probably the fact that he faces jail if he doesn't?

up
Voting closed 0

Here. It begins:

I have to admit I didn’t see this coming, but a Boston Municipal Court judge has continued without a finding the case against a man accused of disrupting proceedings at the Back Bay Church of Scientology earlier this year. ...

up
Voting closed 0

They couldn't find him guilty if they wanted to.

But if you read the Phoenix article, you'd also have read the following:

On January 21 — the day he and four other Anonymous members (or Anons, as they call themselves) posted their “Message to Scientology” video on YouTube — he reports having had just $144 in the bank. Less than one year later, he describes his account as negative-$1400 and plummeting.

Since the CoS successfully pursued criminal complaints against him this past March, Housh has endured 10 pre-trial dates for charges including harassment and disturbing the peace.

You can't easily keep showing up with counsel at pre-trial bullshit for free. Scientology's "drain your coffers" approach is legend. They applied it here when they found out that Housh was basically just an internet dork living paycheck-to-paycheck. The two charges he continued without finding were piled on in *September* even though the event they're complaining about was in March and other charges have been since dropped. They were telling him that they were going to extend this until he was bankrupt or accepted something. He accepted "don't come near them for a year". He'll still continue online to organize, I'm sure, and it sounds like he's still organizing on location before the group actually goes to the sidewalk by the church in protest. He won't have to declare himself guilty of any crime which protects his employment, etc. His lawyer probably convinced him that this was the best possible outcome given the fact that Scientology wasn't going to let go since it has very little grasp on any other Anonymous members in the city.

up
Voting closed 0

So a criminal business can fraudulently call itself a church and thus claim that anyone who enters their business office for any reason is some how "disturbing worship."

How insane.

The Scientology crime syndicate does not have "worship." The syndicate's ringleraders and crime bosses don't have "church services." The notion that Scientology is anything but a corporate business has routinely been laid to rest in endless series of newspaper, magazine, television, radio, and other venue shows, exposes, documentaries, and investigative infiltration of the syndicate.

The only reason the syndicate on rare occasion gets away with making such claims is because politically some DA's offices are driven to platicate the crime syndicate.

The truht about Scientology, what it is and what it does, is available all over the Internet.

My opinions only and only my opinions, as always.

up
Voting closed 0