It is interesting to see people discuss the ex Scientology Community. They treat it as though it is a cohesive, happy group of people. Unfortunately, a lot of ex Scientologists feel like they need a community of others who were there too to feel comfortable. In my mind, this is not actually healthy.

Before you get all upset and say things like “common goal,” “fighting the enemy,” “take down Miscavige,,” etc., let me clarify.

Just like when a person graduates from school, people move on. Now, in reality, Scientology stunts even this part of people’s lives. Those people who were born in Scientology and leave as adults may not even have experienced graduation from school. But the comparison is still valid.

I attended my 50th year high school class reunion 4 years ago and it was strange. I left home for college less than 3 months after graduation. I never again lived there. I was in college, then Scientology. I left Scientology just shortly before my parents died, 12 years after I graduated. After that, there was really no reason to go back.

The shared experience of attending the same high school had zero effect on who I liked or got along with 50 years after graduation. There were less than a dozen people at the reunion I even talked to. They were the ones who had attended the entire 12 years of school with me. The rest of the people were strangers who I had known for a brief moment of my life. And that’s the way life works.

It’s the same or worse in Scientology. The reality of a Scientology friendship is that there is no bond. None. No familial bond, no real friendship. And your co worker will willingly write a knowledge report on you if it will keep them out of trouble. Therefore, the only real bond formed in Scientology is a trauma bond. So to feel like you need to be friends with someone just because they were in Scientology too doesn’t make sense. It’s highly unlikely you were friends then. Even if you knew the person. And if you had a friendship, it was superficial.

After I left Scientology, I didn’t tell anyone I had been in for 27 years. I was not your normal escapee, I know. It was good because I was able to heal without anyone from my past involved. It has only been the last 15 years that I have become active in attempting to take Scientology down. And the people who have hurt me the worst since I have started telling my story are other ex Scientologists.

There are so many ex Scientologists who are so busy “being ex Scientologists” these days that they don’t realize that they are harming their own mental health by constantly repeating the details of their past trauma in public forums. They are so busy being.a group of damaged people that they can’t take the next logical step and repair themselves.

Sure, it’s ok to make friends with people who were in Scientology. I have a few friends in my large contingent of friends who are ex Scientologists. But that should never be the sole criteria for a friendship. If that is the only common ground you have, your friendship is bound to fail. At least that’s how I see it.

I have uploaded the entire response in all its wordiness here. But u/inco was kind enough to do a quick summary of the document for me too. It is interesting that DOA spends so much time on the meth allegation, but I’ve saved a couple of great quotes where he really hit home. The summary covers everything else I could say. It’s hard to get very interested when you’re cheering really loud for both sides to lose.

Edit: here’s the link to the motions, sorry.

https://valerierossbooks.com/2026/07/14/doa-response-to-aaron-smith-levins-anti-slapp-motion-to-dismiss/

Overview

Scott Hochstetter asks the court to deny Aaron Smith-Levin's motion to dismiss. He argues that Aaron is trying to portray the lawsuit as an attack on protected speech about Scientology and activism, when the lawsuit is actually about specific allegedly false factual statements that damaged Scott's reputation. If the court finds any deficiencies in the complaint, Scott requests leave to amend instead of dismissal with prejudice.

Main Arguments

1. Anti-SLAPP does not protect defamatory false statements

Scott argues that Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute protects speech on matters of public concern, but not false statements of fact.

According to Scott, Aaron's motion repeatedly focuses on the Scientology controversy while ignoring the actual claims, which include allegations that Aaron falsely accused him of:

• methamphetamine use
• stalking
• doxing
• self-swatting
• fundraising misconduct
• sexual misconduct implications

Scott argues these are factual claims that can be proven true or false and therefore remain actionable even if made during YouTube livestreams or public debates.

2. Aaron cannot represent the SPTV Foundation

Scott first raises a procedural issue.

Aaron filed the motion on behalf of both himself and the SPTV Foundation, but signed only as a pro se defendant.

Scott argues that under Florida law a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney, so Aaron cannot seek dismissal for the Foundation himself. He asks the court to disregard the motion as it relates to SPTV Foundation.

3. Aaron mischaracterizes the meth allegations

This is one of Scott's largest arguments.

Aaron's motion argued that Scott admitted receiving a harm-reduction package containing a glass pipe.

Scott responds that this completely misses the point.

He says the defamatory accusation was never simply:

Scott received a pipe.

Instead, he says Aaron repeatedly implied or stated that Scott:

• used methamphetamine
• tasted methamphetamine
• suffered a meth-induced mental breakdown
• acted irrationally because of meth use

Scott argues that these are objectively verifiable factual accusations, not opinions.

He also points to a YouTube Short titled "Scott Hochstetter admits he got a meth pipe" and comments beneath it, arguing Aaron reinforced the implication that Scott had used meth rather than merely received a pipe.

4. Aaron "cherry-picks" only the weakest allegations

Scott argues that Aaron's motion discusses only a handful of statements while ignoring many others.

He says the complaint includes allegations involving:

• meth accusations
• stalking
• doxxing
• fundraising misconduct
• repeated "Swatty" references
• mental health accusations

Even if one statement were protected opinion, Scott argues that would not justify dismissing the entire complaint. Each allegedly defamatory statement must be analyzed individually.

5. Public-figure status does not defeat the lawsuit

Aaron argued Scott is a limited-purpose public figure because he livestreamed protests and solicited donations.

Scott responds:

Even if that is true, Aaron still must prove that the challenged statements were:

• substantially true,
• protected opinion, or
• otherwise constitutionally protected.

Scott argues public-figure status merely raises the burden to prove actual malice; it does not create immunity for defamatory statements.

6. Aaron's conduct after receiving the retraction demand supports actual malice

One of Scott's more significant arguments concerns events after he demanded a retraction.

Scott alleges Aaron:

• received written notice identifying the allegedly defamatory statements,
• publicly mocked the demand,
• continued repeating the accusations,
• refused to investigate or retract anything.

Scott argues this post-notice conduct supports:

• actual malice
• republication
• continuing damages
• ongoing reputational harm

He cites later YouTube broadcasts in which Aaron allegedly repeated accusations involving:

• stalking
• swatting
• meth use
• fundraising
• Plaintiff's family
• ridicule about Plaintiff's anatomy

Scott argues these later broadcasts show Aaron relied on speculation rather than verified facts while continuing to repeat the allegations.

Heavy reliance on Mishiyev v. Davis

Throughout the response Scott repeatedly cites the recent Florida appellate decision Mishiyev v. Davis (2025).

He argues that case is highly analogous because it also involved:

• YouTube disputes
• accusations of illegal drug use
• copyright accusations
• online commentary

Scott argues the appellate court held that accusations of illegal drug use could be understood as factual assertions rather than protected opinion, making dismissal inappropriate at the pleading stage.

Response to Aaron's "actual malice" argument

Aaron argued Scott alleged only a failure to verify facts.

Scott disagrees.

He claims Aaron:

• adopted accusations from others,
• repeated them,
• endorsed them,
• amplified them,
• continued publishing after being told they were false.

Scott argues that is enough to plausibly allege reckless disregard for the truth at this stage of the litigation.

Alternative request

Even if the judge finds pleading defects, Scott asks that he be allowed to amend the complaint rather than having the case dismissed with prejudice.

Comparison with Aaron Smith-Levin's Motion

Scott directly disputes several of Aaron's key arguments:

Aaron's Motion |Scott's Response
The lawsuit attacks protected speech about Scientology and protests. |The lawsuit targets specific false factual accusations, not opinions about Scientology.
Scott is a public figure. |Even if true, defamatory factual statements remain actionable if made with actual malice.
Statements were opinions or rhetorical hyperbole. |Many statements are factual allegations capable of being proven true or false.
Scott admitted facts supporting the meth allegation. |Receiving a pipe is not the same as using meth or having a meth-induced breakdown.
Anti-SLAPP requires dismissal. |Anti-SLAPP does not immunize defamatory falsehoods.
Scott failed to show actual malice. |Aaron allegedly continued repeating the accusations even after receiving a retraction demand, supporting actual malice. Overall

Scott's response is largely a point-by-point rebuttal of Aaron's Anti-SLAPP motion. Rather than introducing entirely new claims, it argues that Aaron has reframed the lawsuit too broadly as one about public debate, while the complaint is actually based on numerous specific allegedly false factual accusations. Scott also places considerable emphasis on Aaron's conduct after receiving notice of the allegations, arguing that the continued publication of the statements supports an inference of actual malice sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Appellate Court of Florida has received Aaron’s Notice of Appeal. However, no filing fee was attached.

I am in the middle of getting ready to go off grid until the middle of Monday afternoon. I may have time to check the court file before I leave. This isn’t the top of my priority list, honestly so maybe I won’t catch you up til Monday afternoon on Aaron’s attempt to appeal a misdemeanor case.

But here is his latest misadventure in the appeals court.

Tom DeVocht, the single father of a daughter who is nearly a teenager, made a post asking his paid subscribers to cancel their paid subscription to his substack. Tom is a former RTC Executive who left before Mike Rinder did. He is one of the first people who helped Mike went after leaving.

His post, like a lot of his posts, was well thought out and informative. He ended it saying he is going to spend his time enjoying his daughter.

Here is the link to the post if you care to read the whole thing.

https://open.substack.com/pub/devodevocht/p/please-cancel-your-paid-subscription

Aaron somehow decided this post was a deeply personal post aimed at him. If you’re a fan of flying spittle and overblown hyperbole, feel free to hunt down his channel and locate the video of Aaron being Aaron. Aaron will thank you for the view by not noticing your existence. He will be too busy paying bots to inflate his subscription numbers.

Here is a transcript summary to save you the discomfort and limit the number of views he gets as well.

https://ot42.de.cool/?v=R1yFF2fbXyo

Aaron gets so defensive, it’s obvious that Tom hit a really weak spot in Aaron’s Narcissistic armor plating when he said this:

“*To those, new and old, painting sidewalks and engaging in endless infighting to generate attention (or 	income) one day you might realize (or just maybe admit) who you really work for.\**

*The constant noise doesn’t expose anything new. It doesn’t change policy. It doesn’t stop abuses. It 	doesn’t dismantle the organization.\** 

*In my opinion, it mainly keeps Scientology alive and gives David Miscavige exactly what he needs to keep 	raising money and feeding the machine. If you benefit from that... well, I’ll just leave it there.”*

Aaron went so far as to try to pretend that he has something to do with raising his three daughters. He claimed that he can raise his daughters and protest at the same time. He doesn’t mention that he has had various mistresses for at least a decade and doesn’t even live in the same house as these three daughters he’s “raising.”

He then defends the assault and battery protests and the slander and libel of anyone who doesn’t toe his hard line as perfectly acceptable. And accuses Tom of being elitist. Because Tom points out that infighting and making the outside world look like an unsafe place; the very things Aaron does with his pizza party prop protests, are not productive.

Shakespeare said it best: “the* lady doth protest too much,* methinks.”

On June 30, 2026. A Notice of Appeal was filed in this case. I have not practiced in Florida. But, according to my reading of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), the Final Deadline to Make this Filing was June 29, 2026. The Court closed Aaron’s case that day, which made me more confident in this belief,

This wasn’t just a piece of paper showing up late in the files. The date on the notice is June 30. Your guess is as good as mine as to what happens next.

No filing currently shows in the Appeals Court.

Aaron’s Misdemeanor Battery Case is closed as of today. No appeal was filed. The time has expired for him to be able to do so. He either couldn’t find an attorney slimy enough willing to do it for him, or the cost was too high. (I’ve attached a screenshot showing the case closed).

The case Liz’s husband filed is still stalled. Either party has the right to request a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss based on the pleadings. Or in the Alternative, a Hearing. Now that the Standing Order has been Filed, the Case is under time constraints. But no discovery can start until an Answer has been filed as long as there is no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the case sits there running down the clock.

In the DOA case, it seems as though Aaron plans to just default on the summons. I’ve attached a page of the return of service showing when it was served. Or he was so busy celebrating release from his second incarceration, he lost track of time. He had until close of business today to answer for service on the 9th of June. Unless he has filed something he generated with hallucinatory AI citations like with Liz’s husband, and it just hasn’t shown up in the Court files yet, DOA has the right to Default him now and ask for a default judgment.

The Complaint filed by DOA requests $300,000 in damages. Since Aaron didn’t bother to answer the complaint, DOA automatically gets that Plus, there could be additional calculated damages for presumed, compensatory and punitive damages. I have screenshots of pages 39 and 40 of the Complaint, showing damage requests.

And there is still no divorce filed. Has his mistress du jour caught on yet?

At 12:45 pm LA time today, there will be oral arguments in the Appeal filed in Danny Masterson’s Sexual Assault Conviction.

Tony Ortega covers it well here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/tonyortega/p/today-danny-mastersons-appeal-gets

For a quick recap, Masterson is currently serving a 30 year sentence after being convicted of violent Sexual Assault of more than one woman. He has been in prison since May 31, 2023. This means he is already more than 3 years into his 30 year sentence. Translated in prison terms, if he doesn’t create problems, he can expect to walk free at the end of 2/3 of his sentence. So with no intervention, the now 50-year old Masterson will be on the streets again in less than 17 years.

The Court will post a link so we can all tune in and watch these arguments live approximately 1/2 hour before they start. I will be posting it as soon as it is available.

Tony Ortega will be watching the livestream. So will his legal expert, an appellate court attorney. They will be giving us their take on this when it is over. I will offer mine as well. None of us will be wasting the time and money to travel to LA for a hearing that lasts less than an hour.

Aaron claims he will be traveling to California to attend the hearings live be with his mistress. I do not know whether his probation supervisor gave permission for this. Or if he will actually be there. Nor will I be reading his recap. Why? Because it will be stolen from whatever Tony and his expert say. He may even read what I say too. If anyone is still donating to Aaron to attend these things, they are throwing away their money.

Scientology has filed an Amicus Brief in this case as well. It will not be heard today. An Amicus brief is a “friend of the court” brief. Scientology, as the Court’s “friend” wants to point out that Danny’s religious freedom was trampled when his religion was introduced into his trial.

The State will be responding to this. They have until July 13. Then Danny gets to respond to the State. Then the Court will either decide that matter or go to oral argument on that.

The elephant in the room is: where is Danny getting the money to pay for all this?

Edit: Here’s the link

https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/5707?view\_id=48&redirect=true

Here’s a recap of what Aaron Smith-Levin, the man who claims to be the President of a foundation to help people escape Scientology, has been up to in the courtroom. The photo after the cover photo is a snapshot of his open cases in Pinellas County Court

There’s the Libel/Slander case filed by DOA

There’s the Libel/Slander case filed by Liz Gale’s husband.

There’s the Misdemeanor Battery Case.

This is The Latest on The DOA Libel/Slander Case

On June 11, 2026, after attempting to evade service from DOA, Aaron was finally served. The process server described it like this:

“He was exiting his vehicle. He refused to identify himself, but I knew it was him. I advised he was served
and placed the papers on the driveway. He was unpacking a car and the female with him stood by me and
heard me and saw them.”

I’m sure we can place guesses who the female was. Note, when this summons was first issued, Aaron was still in jail. That is how long it has taken to serve him.

Aaron now has 20 calendar days from June 11 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. And it was a lengthy complaint.

If Aaron is true to form, expect an AI generated Motion to Dismiss with hallucinatory logic to be filed in this case shortly. If anyone but bots still watch his channel, expect him to reveal the entire motion on there before filing it because he somehow believes that’s how legal strategy should work.

Liz Gale’s Husband’s Libel/Slander Case

I made a separate post about that one.

You can read it here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OT42/s/J9BNltd9EE

The Misdemeanor Battery Case

This case is only open for a few more days unless Aaron can convince someone to represent him in an appeal. For a misdemeanor battery charge.

The attorney who represented him in this case has said he doesn’t do appeals. The final order from the judge has been filed by the clerk of the Court. There are still a scant few days for a notice of appeals to be filed. Aaron may still be able to locate a hungry bottom feeder an attorney willing to represent him. His current attorney could still file the notice. If not, the case will close on June 28.

In The Meantime

Aaron has announced on his channel that he intends to travel to LA on June 25 to attend the Masterson Oral Arguments. I have no idea if his Parole Supervisor is aware of those plans.

https://open.substack.com/pub/tonyortega/p/oral-arguments-hearing-in-danny-mastersons

This is subterfuge. Tony Ortega and his Appellate Lawyer expert will both be watching it via live stream provided by the Court. Any coverage Aaron gives will be stolen, as usual, from Tony’s coverage.

His only reason for getting members of his channel to fork out more money is for him to visit his mistress in California.

I won’t be shocked if he attempts to pull it again in July for the Remini anti-SLAPP hearing. Once again, he may or may not remember he’s on probation and he needs permission.

https://open.substack.com/pub/tonyortega/p/leah-remini-lawsuit-gets-hearing

So there you have it, the fine upstanding president of a foundation allegedly helping Scientologists escape.

As discussed in my previous post, in order for his case to move to move forward, Liz’s husband needed to correct a filing deficiency.

Rules, rules, rules. Yes, they are annoying and they seem to be meaningless. But with so many cases clogging the courts these days, many of which should not be there, the only way to get a case moving is to do it the way that particular court requires.

The schedule that was filed is a simple two page document. The main purpose is to draw the attention of the court and the clerk to this case, get a judge assigned, and move the case forward. The schedule states trial has to be held no later than a year after filing of the case. This means the case either has to settle or go to trial by that date.

Liz’s husband, if desired, may now look at the assigned Judge’s online calendar in this case and file a Notice of Hearing on available date to get the Motion to Dismiss that is stalling the case out of the way. As long as it is sitting there unajudicated, Aaron is not forced to actually answer the complaint. The clerk is allowed to help Liz’s husband select a date.

This would be a great time to do this because he now has a ticking clock in two other cases. I will write a post about those things in a new post which should appear in the next few hours.

On the afternoon of June 5, Judge Hessinger filed her final combined order regarding Aaron’s two motion for a new trial. It is a thing of beauty. It can be read in all its glory here.

Order Re Motions For New Trial

The statement regarding the curative instruction is an important quote from the Order. (First image above).

The Judge goes on to state that Aaron and his counsel violated the MIL three times before she removed the jury.

Aaron‘s motion for a new trial #1 claims that Aaron was not allowed to proffer. the Judge states in her order that Aaron and counsel were allowed to proffer, they used that time, instead, badgering the victim regarding practices of suppressive persons. (Second image above).

The Judge also manages to get in the Order the fact that Aaron was encouraging his followere to “double down” during jail calls. (Third image above)

Just do yourself a favor, click on the link and read the order. it’s worth your time.

Aaron’s attorney tried a sneaky backdoor to try to win yesterday’s hearing. It did not work. On the 28th of May, 2026, the day before the hearing, he filed his Notice of Appeal. With it he filed a Request for a writ of prohibitions. This can be used to prohibit someone from doing what is not wanted. In this case, the request was to get the judge to not rule on Aaron’s case anymore.

The petition was denied as soon as it hit the file. As Inco posted, both of the motions regarding new trials were summarily denied.

Oddly enough, the appeals did not appeal Aaron’s conviction, only Judge Hessinger being the judge at the trial that he lost. He is already out of jail, he’s paid off his fine and he’s doing probation. What a colossal waste of everyone’s time.

In advance of the request for a new trial, Aaron Smith-Levin has managed to beg enough money from his followers to pay off his court fines.

His hearing for a request for a new trial is coming up on May 29, 2026. This should make no difference in the outcome of his hearing. It is odd, and possibly a mistake, but the bottom of this document requests that it be returned to felony court records.

Using the OT42 Summaries capabilities, attached is an AI recap of Aaron’s version of Scientology Dead Agent Policy. Dead Agenting is a Scientology practice where they attempt to make a person they don’t like look like there is adequate reason for everyone to dislike that person. The way this is done is to provide anyone who will listen a dead agent pack. This is a compilation of documents designed to defame or ruin the reputation of an opponent. Used to discredit someone who has spoken out against Scientology, or in this case the almighty Aaron Smith-Levin. Aaron has used this tactic against former friends on his channel since its inception. If you dare mention something Aaron doesn’t like, he will save it as ammunition against you. He will also fabricate information out of thin air, just like Scientology does.

Bear in mind that the person using this tactic claims to be the president of an alleged foundation that is meant to help people leave Scientology. He has also been out over two decades, yet still uses Scientology practices when they suit his agenda while purporting to protest against them.

My responses to some of his most outrageous claims will be in [brackets and italicized] to make them stand out.

Video Summary
1. Introduction and Allegations against Judge Hessinger
Aaron Smith-Levin begins the video by attacking Judge Kathleen Hessinger, who presided over his battery trial. He uses inflammatory language, calling her a "tyrannical, lunatic, psychotic judge" and the "terror of Pinellas County." He claims the purpose of the video is to expose her "unbelievable bias" and investigate her alleged connections to the Church of Scientology.

2. The Pam Bondi Connection
Aaron argues that Hessinger’s primary link to Scientology is through her long-standing friendship with former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. He highlights the following:

Law School Friendship: Hessinger and Bondi were classmates in law school.

[Hessinger is 61 years old. That’s a huge stretch. And even if they are friends, that doesn’t mean she sees her daily, if at all. This is similar to Aaron claiming Morgan Mee is wet behind the ears because he’s too lazy to research her entire history in Law School, etc.]

The 2006 "Dog Case": Aaron reads a Tampa Bay Times article from 2006 regarding a lawsuit over a dog adopted by Bondi after Hurricane Katrina. Hessinger presided over the case. According to the report, Hessinger offered to recuse herself due to her friendship with Bondi, but when the opposing counsel requested she actually do so, she refused. Aaron uses this to argue that Hessinger has a history of unethical refusals to recuse herself.

[Recuse and disqualify are not the same. And if a 20 year old possible case is the best Aaron has, he’s got nothing. The Motion to Disqualify was filed by Aaron’s attorney after he lost the battery case against the second victim. The Motion goes into everything Aaron’s attorney claims the judge did wrong in Aaron’s first battery case. Note: Aaron won that case. The attorney making those arguments was not present when she made those statements, he came into the case very late in the game after Aaron begged his first attorney not to withdraw. He did not witness any of Aaron’s courtroom antics until the trial in the first case.]

Scientology’s Political Influence: Aaron alleges that Pam Bondi and her successor, James Uthmeyer, have been "financially influenced" by Trish Duggan (a wealthy Scientologist). He claims Duggan donated $1.8 million to political action committees to buy favors for the Church.

[And has Duggan ever met the Judge?]

3. Comparison of Sentences
Aaron expresses deep resentment over his legal outcome. He contrasts his sentence—43 days in jail for what he describes as a "mild, innocent, unintentional shove"—with the case of Scientologist David Gentile. He claims Gentile, convicted in a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, received a presidential pardon after serving only 12 days of a seven-year sentence due to Trish Duggan’s influence. Aaron uses this comparison to suggest that the justice system in Pinellas County is rigged in favor of Scientology.

[Aaron was sentenced to thirty days for the second case, not 43. He served 19 days 11 hours. He was in jail from 7:06 PM April 14, 2026, and was released to probation at 6:16 AM on the 4th of May. During that time his followers made sure his commissary and gift packages were well stocked. Aaron walked out of jail with $585 in his pocket. He was $20 in the hole when admitted. It was a profitable 19 1/2 days. It is illegal to gift commissary to others. It can only be used for fines. Aaron hasn’t paid a penny of his fines yet. He had 10 months from April 14. Tick tock.]

4. Accusations of Judicial Bias in the Courtroom
Aaron recounts specific moments from his trial to illustrate Hessinger’s alleged bias:

"Feeling Sorry" for Scientology: He claims the judge stated she "felt sorry" for the Scientologists after viewing footage of Aaron protesting at their Public Information Center.

[I feel sorry for the people Aaron accosts in Scientology. Instead of helping them escape as he alleges he’s doing, he is reinforcing the idea that there are scary people on the outside.]

The Battery Video: Aaron replays the footage of the incident that led to his conviction. He maintains that he was the victim of battery (having his foot slammed in a door) and that his actions were a defensive reaction, despite the jury finding him guilty of battery.

[Aarons “ow you hurt my foot wouldn’t earn him a callback on an audition as the door was slowly closing. However his hard shove making his victim’s head bounce was very real.]

Reputation among Peers: Aaron claims "word on the street" is that Hessinger was recently moved out of her division due to complaints from defense attorneys regarding "legal malpractice" and her tendency to impose mandatory 30-day jail sentences on DUI cases regardless of the facts.

[“Word on the street” means he has no proof. Another Scientology tactic. His judge hasn’t changed division, that’s what I know, his alleged word on the street comes perilously close to overstepping first amendment boundaries.]

5. Call to Action and First Amendment Defense
The host concludes by calling for a protest outside the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center and vows to campaign against Hessinger’s re-election. He addresses viewer concerns about his safety, stating that while he is on probation, he has the First Amendment right to criticize a government official and call her "unethical" or "psychotic" without it being a criminal violation.

Key Arguments
Guilt by Association: Because Judge Hessinger is friends with Pam Bondi, and Bondi has allegedly accepted donations from Scientologists, Aaron argues that the judge is a "Scientology ally" by extension.

[I’m smart enough to even figure out that a family member can be different than others. It’s a shame Aaron takes a possible decades old law school acquaintance and turns it into a connection.]

Precedent of Bias: The 2006 dog case is presented as "proof" that the judge is incapable of impartiality and routinely ignores requests for recusal to protect her friends.

[Just because Aaron is two decades out of Scientology and has not made an effort to even find a way to move on, he believes that a 20 year old case (which may not even be real) is a smoking gun.]

Victimization: Aaron argues that his 43-day jail stay was a "tyrannical" overreach for an "unintentional" act, especially when compared to the treatment of wealthy Scientologists.

*[*19 1/2 days. Yes Aaron has served more jail time, but only self-inflicted jail time because he violated his bond in the first case. Battery #1 was on a different person than battery #2 and the second sentence was for battery #2.]

Incompetence: He argues that Hessinger is a "danger to society" who is being moved between court divisions because she is widely disliked by the legal community.

[What movement? She’s still there.]

Critical Conclusions
The video is a textbook example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender). Despite a jury of his peers finding him guilty of battery and a judge sentencing him according to the law, Aaron refuses to acknowledge his own agency in the criminal act.

1. Lack of Substantive Evidence:
The "ties to Scientology" promised in the title are remarkably tenuous. Aaron relies on a 20-year-old law school friendship and a dispute over a dog to bridge the gap to a global conspiracy. He provides no evidence that Scientology ever contacted Hessinger or that she received any benefit from them.

2. Manipulation of the Audience:
Aaron uses highly emotive and dehumanizing language to describe the judge, likely to galvanize his "SPTV" community into a state of outrage. By framing himself as a "whistleblower" or "advocate" rather than a convicted offender, he maintains his status within his niche audience while avoiding the humility required for rehabilitation.

3. Weaponizing the First Amendment:
While Aaron is correct that he has the right to criticize the judiciary, he uses this right to deflect from the facts of his case. By focusing on the judge's personality and past friendships, he distracts his viewers from the evidence that led a jury to return a guilty verdict.

4. Deflection of Responsibility:
Throughout the video, Aaron minimizes his crime as an "innocent shove." His refusal to accept the jury's verdict suggests a deep-seated inability to accept accountability. Instead of self-reflection, he chooses to label the entire legal system of Pinellas County as "corrupt" to protect his self-image as a perpetual victim of the Church of Scientology.

[It is a shame that Aaron continues to find ways to make this all about him. He is not even an adequate voice in the anti Scientology movement. He is living proof that scientology causes serious harm to people and unless a person makes a concerted effort on their part, they will always use Scientology as an excuse to misbehave rather than become a productive member of society. He is a poster child for how not to protest Scientology.]

In a move that surprised absolutely no one, the Judge in Aaron’s case refused to disqualify herself from Aaron’s second trial he lost. The motion is based on some things he says she said that show her bias towards him. However, the huge majority of these things are said in his first trial, which he won. The Judge denies it on the basis of legal insufficiency. Per Florida Law, those are the only grounds she can use to legally deny the motion.

Edit: She has now added a May 15 for arguments on the Motion for a new trial. As usual, we can expect Aaron to broadcast their legal strategy for this hearing in the near future.