Normally I am not fond of celeb media… mostly anyway… but this one is kinda funny, and he’s not really a celeb anyway:

Jason Beghe with pet

Jason Beghe, with pet

‘X-Men’ Star Suspect in Weed Wacking Assault

Jason Beghe — one of the stars of “X-Men: First Class” and a veteran actor — is under criminal investigation for allegedly attacking a man who was wacking weeds on his property, TMZ has learned. According to the incident report, Daniel Montalvo was using a weed wacker on Beghe’s Malibu property last week when the device malfunctioned.  Cops tell us … a frustrated Montalvo “mistreated the device.”  That pissed off Beghe, who then got into a loud confrontation with Montalvo which became physical. …

Source: http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/01/x-men-first-class-star-accused-of-weed-wacking-crime-jason-beghe-daniel-montalvo-process-server-assualt-confrontation/

Older source: http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/14/that-guy-busted-for-popping-process-server/

Case number, anyone?


  1. “and he’s not really a celeb anyway”

    These baseless personal attacks.. why do you do it, Louanne? Why do you have to attack the person (ad hom) instead of sticking to issues? That’s pretty terrible, especially if you’re trying to show scientologists are ethical people.

    I don’t know how you define a “celebrity”, if you’re not just trying to attack the person. Even the article you quote lists him as a “star” of a major current motion picture. IMDB lists his “star power” as up 486 this week. He’s has 84 credits to his name, several hits this year alone.

    How do you define a celebrity, then?

    • funny how you have altered the REAL issue right now…
      How do you think the police will charge him and how do you think this will affect his career?

      • No, Fred, you miss my point. My point is that her comment that he’s “not a real celebrity anyways” is morally and ethically wrong. It’s a minor issue, but a point nonetheless.

      • you argue to ……”instead of sticking to issues”
        yet you have written on all that on something you admit is a “minor point anyway”???
        I think the term celebrity does apply, but heck, in some ways it doesn’t, its up to the writer to decdide i guess what terms apply and when, depending on their intensions…
        If you want to read people with “other” intensions there are plenty of antiscientology sites you are free to stick to all you like…
        If you don’t like the intensions of the writers of this site, then… why are you here? You just love fighting online or something?

      • Fred, I appreciate your agenda and all, and for joining in on a question I asked of Louanne, but you don’t seem to get it. It is minor, yes, but it’s also relevant AND a pattern. Louanne personally insulted Beghe in a way unrelated to the story. Personally, I think that’s wrong. If you support doing such a thing, then that’s a matter for your personal ethics.
        If I see something wrong like that, I’ll point it out. Am I not free to do so? You seem to greatly oppose that I do.

      • I disagree with YOUR clear adgenda thats all…

      • I still want an answer…
        Why are you here?

      • “my clear agenda”… wow. You really support personal attacks? I’m the one that’s wrong for pointing that out?
        Fine, we can disagree on that, I have no problem with that. But I stand for what I believe in, whether you agree with me or not.

        “I still want an answer…
        Why are you here?”

        Yes, Sir, right away.
        To discuss. You?

    • The dictionary defines celebrity as famous or well known. Being in movies does not necessarily = famous or well known.


      • I’d reply, but Louanne seems to have deleted some of my comments. I’ll try again, I guess.

        first question, Pat, is what does his level of fame have to do with scientology? That’s the point, Louanne includes these personal attacks in such a way that is morally wrong and irrelevent to the story- she does it often.

        Besides, I’d say that starring in several movies, plus being famous enough to be a concern to TMZ and dozens of other outlets makes on a celebrity. But, it’s a moot point.

        What’s interesting, is if you read some of the critical sites, there’s an agreement among many, myself included, that if he did do this thing, he deserves to be punished for it, and that, too, is morally wrong. For once, Louanne, we may agree.

      • Pat- do you disagree with Fred, who said that he IS a celebrity?

      • I actuallly find it offensive that you continue to go after the person (ad hominem attacks) rather than duplicate the article. The debate of his “stardom” is irrelevant to the fact that he has broken laws, and that’s what the post is about. This seems to be a problem for you, and that’s your thing. The fact that you come on here for the express purpose of dissing Louanne is totally obvious.


      • No, Pat, you miss the point. This is not first time that Louanne has posted unrelated information for the sole purpose of attacking someone in a way that is unrelated to the story.
        I just called her on it, is all. The fact that you support and even defend ad hom attacks is quite telling and consistent.
        Beside, I might remind you that you discussed his stardom on several occasions in this thread alone.

      • Heck, and not just in this thread. On

        On April 24, 2008 at 6:34 am you said of Beghe, “Celebrities are respected but I’d sure like to know what it is he got that everyone else didn’t.”

        But, I suppose times can change, as can opinions. Regardless, if you read my original post, I merely ask Louanne why she so frequently includes such attacks. However, I thank you for weighing in on my question to her.

    • Ok, apologies, he IS a celebrity, D-List nonetheless! Always plays the same role though. Crazy-ass cop with psycho tendencies. I am not surprised.

      – L

      • okay, then I think you’re morally right. I have nothing more to say on that particular point. Thanks for clearing it up.

  2. It’s funny, at the same time that a senior member of the Australian church and the head of the church’s “International Commission on Human Rights”, Jan Eastgate, has been charged with intimidating a sex abuse victim, who was allegedly assaulted within the church, you’re worrying about a story like this. Between the two, I’ll take the fight.

    You say you’re not a fan of celeb media… but you post anything negative about Beghe that you can find, including a smear letter from his sister. Seems to me you’re pretty fixated on him.

    • “who was allegedly assaulted within the church”
      Get your facts right
      She was assualted by her stepfather, who at the time called himself a scientologist parishiner. not SO hence not “within” the church.
      Jan is being charged for “telling” the victim to lie to the police to aviod psychiatrists at the time.
      She then goes on saying jan justified it with scientologist beliefs… the problem is, what she is saying ISNT scientology beliefs.
      It looks like this case will either
      1. Be one persons word against another… like SO many church cases end up being.
      2. End up going for a long time digging up some very old data.
      All such information is easy to find, it is clear you altered them for a reason.

      • I would also like to add that everything the media has released on this case is extremely one sided…
        Jan hasnt commented in any way shape or form on the matter officially…
        Ususally the Australian media is very slow to report on CURRENT court cases for legal reasons… it seems when its time to have a go at scientology they just cant help themselves!

      • Oh and the charge is “obstruction of justice” not “intimidation” there is a difference…

      • True, Fred.

        Like in the case of the Headleys, there was a lot of folderol about how they were sueing the Church, and you still see “claims” from that lawsuit being bandied about by the critics, but when it came to the fact that the charges were thrown out and unfounded, not a mention in the media or by the critics.

        The irony is that it’s obvious that the more the critics play on these, the better the Church does because folks see that there must be something worthwhile, or the media wouldn’t be attacking it.


      • Wow, Fred, you’re quite spun up on this. Okay.
        Do parishioners not make up the church? I ask because some scientologists have objected to criticism, saying that the church is made up of members, so “attacking” the church is attacking the members themselves. It seems that you draw a distinction, and I’m only curious what it is.
        Me, myself, if a Catholic parishioner assaults their child, and receives advice or council from church leadership, that, too, would be “within the church”, but it’s a matter of semantics.
        Regardless, this is another case of a senior scientologist ALLEGEDLY committing a crime, and violating any standard of ethics. She joins the ranks of murders, fraudsters and other criminals. While that doesn’t reflect on the belief system, of course, it does highlight the fact that there really is no difference, in and of itself, between a high-ranking scientologist who spends a large sum of money on training, and any other religious elder.
        Honestly, no one has ever been able to answer for me what, if anything, makes a scientologist “different” than anyone else. Is there anything that a scientologist can do that I can not?

      • Now, here’s a big question, Fred (and Pat, if you’re interested)

        Let’s start by ack’ing that we don’t know all the facts yet, and cannot say that Eastgate really committed a crime and obstructed justice. I’m not even speculating to that at the moment.

        Consider the victim’s claims:
        “The Church got involved and they sent Jan Eastgate over to drill me and tell me what to say to the police, and what to say to docs,” Rainer told the program. “Just say no. Don’t say yes, because otherwise you will be taken away from your parents and you’ll never see your family again,”

        If what the girl says is true, do you believe that doing so was morally wrong? Legally?

      • Dude… step back…
        1. Jeffery Dahamer called himself a christian… deos that mean his crimes are “within” the church?
        No! Parishiners are free to do what they please… they follow thier religoin as a simple choice of interest or hobby, depending on their own degree of commitment… Hence the sexual abuse is not “within” the church as you state aboce.
        Yes it is a matter of semantics as you have gotten spun up on on the matter of the term… “celebrity”
        Yes there is something a scientologist can do that others cannot…
        He can do scientology.
        Remember all scientology does is remind you of the things you already know!

      • First answer my question…
        Why have you twisted the facts above? why is written in the semantics of such anti-scientology? Why can’t you write truthfully? It wasnt hard to do?
        As a matter of speculation… i dont know… all i know is one cannot prove “coercion” easily.
        I’m betting nearly all my money that the witnesses testimony is going to involve 2 anti-scientologists saying one thing happened and the scientologist saying that it didnt, and then noone knowing what REALLY happened.

      • Fred, I twisted no facts. But Louanne addressed it, so I’m satisfied with her response.
        And why do you accuse me of lying? How did I lie?
        We’ll see how it goes, but my only point remains- she is the latest in a long chain of criminals that have been promoted to leadership roles in the group. That’s my only point, and what I have observed to be true.

      • Yes you did… lets start…
        1. Charge with intimidation
        The charge is obstruction of justice, there is a difference
        2. Sexual abuse “within the church”
        A parishiner sexually abused his step daughter. His crime is his own to live with and has nothing to do with the church.
        3. you have now lied saying “long chain of crimes” of “high ranking”…
        Tell me one charge of a high ranking scientologist who has been successfully convicted?

      • [I am closing this thread due to off-topic statements. -L]

    • “you post anything negative about Beghe that you can find”

      Generalities, generalities. I didn’t even mention Beghe on this page or any other before. That’s just your thinly veiled attempt to insult me. Lame. But you are saying there is more negative things about Beghe that I should post? Like this: http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/14/that-guy-busted-for-popping-process-server/

      I could also explore the fact that Beghe is on probation for violent assault. So does this new assault mean that he violated the probation and has to go to jail?

      “Smear letter of his sister”?

      I didn’t know he had a sister. But then his celebrity bio does only list his psycho roles.

      Are you sure you are not mixing this up?

      – L

      • Oops, it was Paul Haggis, my mistake.

    • “at the same time that a senior member of the Australian church”

      Off-topic, dude. That story you are referring to is so fishy that most US media ignored it. But let me recap: 26 years ago a that time Scientologists asks a that time church staff (“senior member”? Nope, never been) for advice in a family matter, namely sexual abuse. What the advice exactly was cannot be tracked clearly at the moment, as what is “known” seems to be 26 years old hear-say of a person who currently is an avid opponent of the Church of Scientology, also known to spread vicious rumors about her former friends. So I take that with a grain of salt. 26 years are just a very long time and people tend add illusion to memory, especially if they can money with it or push their agenda.

      – L

      • Actually, Louanne, it’s quite current. Were you aware that Eastgate was just charged by police with the crime?
        I suppose we’ll see what happens, once the legal process is done.

  3. I guess you don’t learn from your mistakes, much like Jason Beghe. A low-level actor leaves your religion and you make posts like these? How much more petty and immature can you possibly get?

    • Him leaving Scientoliogy is not a problem. Geez, let him whack weed as much as he wants! I don’t care. What I have a problem with are psychotic rants and violence, and Beghe has made it clear that he is out to destroy the lives of Scientologists. This time he hit his gardener, the time before a process server, and who’s next? If he would ever come up to me I would not hesitate to shower him with Mace. Actor or not, nobody has a right to live his psychotic fits or go violent against people. This is relevant news and only if to warn others about him.

      – L

      • Just to be clear, not a gardener, but Daniel, the young kid that recently “escaped” (as he calls it) scientology, who was taken in by Beghe.
        If Beghe attacked him, and we will see, then he deserves to be punished- simple as that.

      • “Daniel, the young kid that recently “escaped””

        Ah, that guy (he’s 20 or above I think). Yes, Beghe was beating up a boy he had given a job as part of his “protection” from the bad, bad scientlogoly. Double-psycho that, by all standards.

        – L

  4. He is a celebrity…
    Hes not as successful as others, but he is a celebrity…
    he now has a big problem on his hands that most of us could do without

    • and, to be honest, if he did indeed commit such a crime, he deserves to be punished for it, simple as that.

    • Yeah, he could have chosen not to beat up that guy. Or the one before him.

      – L

      • Agreed- if someone commits a crime, they do the time- it’s quite simple. This is as true for Rex Fowler as it is Jason Beghe. I’ve seen that many critics feel the same way.

      • Just to be silly for a second, did he ever harm anyone BEFORE he got involved with scientology? I can find no record that he did…

  5. All I could find was this:


    Looks like he is under probation from beating up that process server.

    Psycho, really.

    – L

  6. I don’t know. I wish someone had a copy of the complaint. Anyone?

  7. That was fast. Is that the process server thing?

  8. I am not sure if it is possible to get a case number to a criminal case. We’ll see if anyone can.

  9. WOW!! I had no idea Jason Beghe was such a violent man. Turns out this weed-smokin idiot also has another violence/assault case against him in LA Superior Court.

    Case Number: SC112116

    Filing Date: 04/05/2011
    Case Type: Intentional PI/PD/WD (eg. assault) (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Pending

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed