Photo of William Gude by Tod Seelie in Alta.

Francoise Koster and her restaurant, La Poubelle Bistro located in Los Feliz Village, California became a flashpoint for livestreaming protesters following the conviction of Scientologist Danny Masterson on two counts of forcible rape.

Masterson and his circle had been long-time habitués of La Poubelle. Koster regularly appeared at both criminal trials of Masterson to offer him her personal support. Protesters objected to Koster’s support of the now convicted rapist who was protected for over twenty years by the Church of Scientology’s notorious Office of Special Affairs and its ruthless enforcers including Julian Swartz. 

Francoise Koster is seen to left of Danny Masterson. Attorney Shawn Holley, a member of Masterson’s criminal defense team, is seen standing between Koster and Masterson. Photo by Meghann Cuniff.

Livestreamers outside of La Poubelle included William “Streets LA” Gude, Defender of Ants, Jessica Palmadessa, Confident Chris, and many others.

Gude is well-known as a First Amendment auditor who has exposed LAPD corruption for many years. 

Angry at the protesters, Koster sought to silence Gude by obtaining a restraining order against Gude. The matter was set to be heard in court. Many see Koster acting as an agent of the Church of Scientology and we agree.

For example, Koster launched a GoFundMe during the pandemic in an effort to raise $200,000 to prevent La Poubelle from becoming insolvent. Koster raised $72,000 and remained in business.

Despite her financial problems, Koster appears to have plenty of money to spend on the legal harassment of William Gude and other protesters. The implication here is that Scientology, or its agent(s), paid Koster’s legal fees in an attempt shutter the protesters into silence by use of restraining orders.

William Gude responded to Koster’s fascist restraining order by filing an anti-SLAPP motion. The Reporters Committee offers a succinct  definition of anti-SLAPP:

What is Anti-SLAPP?

Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.

Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.

Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the suit is dismissed through anti-SLAPP proceedings, many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff.

The court heard Gude’s anti-SLAPP motion on June 25, 2024 and decided in his favor. 

In what must be a major embarrassment to Francoise Koster and her attorney, the court’s ruling was scathing in its criticism of her complaint. Courts will sometimes do this to publicly chastise a sloppy attorney. This is what happened in this case: Koster’s legal filing was garbage and a waste of the court’s time. For this reason, the court struck down Koster’s complaint with prejudice and awarded Gude costs. 

The court noted that Koster’s complaint was poorly constructed; largely unsubstantiated; lacked required exhibits; and offered little evidentiary value. This is a sample of what the court said about Francoise Koster who was the Petitioner in this case:

The Court Ruling: