March 14, 2025 • 63 mins
Tony Ortega and Claire Headley examine a newly revealed Scientology document that exposes the church's step-by-step process for declaring enemies and using confidential information against them.
• The document is a checklist for writing Suppressive Person declares, confirming what ex-members have claimed for decades
• Scientology regularly violates its own confidentiality policies, using personal confessions from "auditing" sessions against people who leave
• The declare orders are deliberately crafted to prevent sympathy and include "dead agent" material to destroy credibility
• Scientology's organizational structure is designed to protect David Miscavige while maintaining his absolute control
• Despite church claims in court about respecting confidentiality, the document proves they systematically gather and weaponize personal information
• Claire shares her 2005 experience of being declared a Suppressive Person three days after escaping the organization
• Both discuss the challenge of convincing courts and media of Scientology's true nature despite overwhelming evidence from former members
Support the channel by checking out the merch store for Hail Xenu, Xenu Is My Homeboy, and BFG branded items. You can also pick up Marc Headley's book "Blown for Good: Behind the Iron Curtain of Scientology" in hardback, Kindle, and Audible versions.
BFG Store - http://blownforgood-shop.fourthwall.com/
Blown For Good on Audible - https://www.amazon.com/Blown-for-Good-Marc-Headley-audiobook/dp/B07GC6ZKGQ/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Blown For Good Website: http://blownforgood.com/
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2131160
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/blown-for-good-behind-the-iron-curtain-of-scientology/id1671284503
RSS: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2131160.rss
YOUTUBE PLAYLISTS:
Spy Files Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWtJfniWLwq4cA-e...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome back to the channel.
I'm your host for today, claireHeadley, and I am joined today
by none other than Tony Ortega.
Hey, tony, good to see you.
Hello, claire, thank you forhaving me on.
Of course, always a pleasure.
Yes, it has been a minute sincewe've talked and done anything,
(00:35):
so of course, we often makereference to your blog, which I
will link in the description tothis video as well, and that
post that you put up a few daysago is what inspired me to want
to have this conversation withyou.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Yeah, that was very nice to hear from you.
I you never know what is goingto hit with readers.
You know I'm at Substack now,tonyortegasubstackcom, and I
like to cover what's happeningright now in Scientology as far
as what kind of you knowpromotional materials we can get
out so we get a sense of whatthey're doing.
(01:14):
I like to cover the litigationgoing on, so I have some really
big posts this week about LeahRemini's lawsuit.
Part of it is on appeal and welook at those documents.
But also I like the history ofScientology.
I like to go back and look atthings that have happened in the
past and there are somedocuments from around the era of
2005, 2007 that have beengradually coming out, and it's
(01:38):
just so many of them that ittakes a while to kind of sift
through them and I thought thiswas kind of an interesting
document from that era and I putit up and, wow it was.
It got even more reaction thanI expected and then when I heard
from you, then I knew I'dreally hit pay dirt, because I
know something like that.
You know it's not going toimpress you too much, but the
way that one did, what do youwant me to describe it?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yes, sure, and, and actually before we do that, we
do that.
I wanted to give a bit more ofan intro of you, because I'm
sure I've known of you and yourwork exposing Scientology since
2009, but I think you were doingit even before that.
When did your work exposingScientology as a journalist
begin?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
This November will be 30 years, Claire.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Wow, there you go.
Congratulations for yourupcoming anniversary and thank
you for your dedication andpersistence.
As you know, I know it's notfor the faint of heart, and
anyway, I just wanted to kind ofgive you a tip of the hat and a
pat on the back or whateverelse for just day in, day out,
(02:47):
consistently doing the work.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, thank you, yeah , and I was so fortunate that in
that time 2009, when I got toknow you guys Mark's book was
coming out.
I was the editor-in-chief ofthe Village Voice in New York,
so I got to write about Mark'sbook for that.
That was great.
And then you guys went throughthat stupid legal thing where
Scientology was basically tryingto blackmail you and I got to
write about that.
So I was very fortunate that Igot to write about some really
(03:11):
interesting things in your story.
And then, of course, we've keptin touch over the years and
I've had a website over atTonyOrtegaorg, but now I'm at
Substack, which I really, reallylike.
It's adfree.
That's the best thing aboutthose long stories is you're not
going to be bugged with ads,but anyway, and it's a good
platform for posting documentslike this.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yes, yes, absolutely so.
With that said, go ahead, andthen we'll pull up.
As I mentioned before westarted, I have some slides and
I also felt it was fitting tothrow in my SP to Claire, just
since it was Well, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
That's why I'm really looking forward to what you
know your thoughts are on thisdocument.
Yes, I mean, one of the thingsI think you learn about very
early on.
When you're learning aboutScientology somebody that's
never been in, like myself thefirst things you learn is this
idea of a suppressive personthat L Ron Hubbard, when he was
(04:07):
inventing all this stuff back inthe early 50s, was talking
about survival, and the thingthat makes survival difficult is
called suppression, and then hedecided that the people that
had become enemies of the churchwhich he started calling it
after 1953, were suppressivepeople.
These were people that not onlywere keeping you, holding you
(04:29):
back, but were holding back thechurch of Scientology.
So it was basically the way thechurch declares an enemy is an
SP.
Most of the time whenScientology declares an SP, it's
somebody who was in the churchof Scientology that has run
afoul of the organization in oneway or the other, and
traditionally you knowScientology.
(04:50):
One of the things that I loveabout Scientology is that it
documents everything right.
It just it writes everythingdown, which is great for me as a
journalist.
And so when they decided todeclare you as an enemy in the
old days.
They wanted to make sure youknew about it, and so they would
give you what's called adeclare or declare order.
They would declare you asuppressive person, and to make
(05:13):
sure that it stood out, thatparticular kind of issue was put
on golden rod paper.
Right, that's a yellow orangishpaper.
So people would talk about didyou get your golden rod when you
got declared Okay?
So now you know the lingo rightand these things were when
people were getting kicked outin the 60s, 70s and 80s.
(05:33):
You would expect you'd get tonot only see your declare, but
you'd probably get a copy.
And the other thing that wascharacteristic and you can tell
me if I'm wrong about this,claire was that you know who
knows why they were reallykicking you out.
Maybe you looked at L RonHubbard the wrong way, or maybe
you said something to DavidMiscavige.
He didn't like.
But by the time they puttogether a declare and gave it
(05:56):
to you, it listed all thesehorrible crimes that you're
supposedly guilty of.
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Yes, completely 100%.
Mark Mark, teasing me all thetime he's like oh, I thought you
were a rule follower and thatyou were, uh, you know, like he
didn't think I was ever going toleave just because I was born
into it and, you know, all myfamily was in and so forth.
But anyway to your point.
He jokes that when, when I gotmy declare, he was like man,
(06:27):
you're worse than me, you'relike the wicked witch of the
west.
According to that documentwhich we'll get to, right.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
So they and so they.
They do that.
They make it and as anotheraside, it's probably worth it
here is that you know there'sbeen all this stuff lately about
neiliman, who was aScientologist, grew up in
Scientology, and the famoussci-fi fantasy author who's now
being accused of terrible sexualproblems with these women, and
(06:54):
so there's been a lot ofcoverage and I have been
covering the Gaiman family foryears and years and years, and
so a lot of reporters havecalled me and they all want to
ask me about David Gaiman'sDeclare.
Because, see, neil's father,david Gaiman, was probably the
most well-known Scientologist inall of the United Kingdom.
He was the spokesman forScientology in England and at
(07:16):
one point he was declared andthey put out this goldenrod
about him.
He then went back in laterBecause that's the other thing
about it is, you can work yourway back in, but this declare is
awful.
It accuses of all these sexualcrimes.
And so all these reporters havecalled me and I said listen,
you've got to understand.
The one thing you cannotbelieve is a declare Okay, just
(07:38):
because it says all these thingsabout him doesn't mean any of
it happened.
So please keep that in mind.
I mean, maybe he did some badthings, I don't know, but you
cannot take the declare asevidence of anything, all right,
so that's the background.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Yeah, no.
And to add to that, why?
Because, as you said, most ofthose declared have exited
Scientology, so Scientology usesthe declare as a vessel by
which they, in Scientology'swords, dead agent.
That person, so they will notbe listened to, will have no
(08:17):
influence or voice with anyother Scientologists.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Right.
And so they're writing thedeclare, not only to tell you
why you're being kicked out andyou're an enemy, but then they
show it to other people toexplain.
This is why this person's gonenow and this is why you should
never talk to them again.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Exactly, exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
So you know again, this is very well known in
Scientology.
We all know about declares andgolden rods and people like you
that are shocked by the thingsthat are listed in your declare.
Why this new document is sointeresting is that it's the
first time I've seen it.
It's the actual checklistyou're supposed to follow when
you write a declare.
(08:55):
This is the instructions onwhat you're supposed to do.
I mean, my very firstimpression when I saw this was
man, writing a declare is a painin the butt.
All these issues and referencesyou have to look up and then
all these steps you have tofollow and of course, it's
Scientology, so it's repetitiveand a lot of busy work.
(09:19):
But yeah, there it is.
Here's what you need to do towrite a declare and, of course,
now that we can see it.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
it makes perfect sense, right, claire?
Of course there's a checklistlike this is a checklist for is
outlined.
You know I've often commentedthat the ideal Sea Org member in
my opinion is an android.
Like no emotion, just get itdone, do the steps you know, and
if you're not going to do it,then they'll get rid of you and
(10:01):
someone else will do it.
You know, that's just kind ofthe nature of the organization
and how it works.
But yes, I know completely it's.
I'm going to put my glasses onbecause I'm getting old, so I'm
going to go ahead and pull upthe first slide here so we can
take a look here.
Let me see here.
There we go.
Ok, let's see here.
(10:23):
That works.
You can see that, all right.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
There we go.
Okay, let's see here that works.
You can see that.
All right, I'm just pulling itup on mine as well so that I
have a real close vision of it.
Where is it?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You should see it on the screen here, do you not?
Maybe you don't see it on yourscreen.
Oh, here it is here it is, I'msorry, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I was just pulling it up on my own, just so that I'm
okay.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
No, no, you're good.
So checklist for assembling asuppressive declare issue.
And again, you just describedwhat this is.
Yeah, and, by the way, so Ijust took this screenshot
because look at all thesepolicies writing of an ethics
order, how to write an EDO order, writing a declare order,
(11:13):
completed staff work, how to getapproval of projects and
actions.
I mean, on any one of thesepolicies, tony, we could
probably spend four hours goingthrough the policy right.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
We could probably spend four hours going through
the policy right.
My question for you, though,when I saw that was okay, this,
like I said, to me this lookslike a lot of work.
On the other hand, all of thosemight be very familiar to
somebody like you.
Would you, in other words, whenthey put that list, you would
say, oh, I know all these, noproblem.
Or would they?
Would that take you some workor not?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
No, no, all these, no problem, or would that take you
some work or not?
No, no, I mean.
So.
For example, let's see thefirst three writing of an ethics
order, how to write an ED order, writing a declare order.
Those are all in OEC volume one.
So it's the green volumes.
There's the seven green volumes, from zero to seven, and then
(12:03):
there's the management series.
Also, many of these referencesare included in multiple volumes
, like completed staff work.
You study that policy before youeven become a member of the C
organization, like it's 101, butgosh, the amount of times
(12:25):
probably any staff memberstudies some of these is in the
hundreds easily.
So, yeah, absolutely Very, veryfamiliar.
The viewpoint policy that'salways a funny one for me
because that's kind of what Iused to begin my deconstruction
(12:46):
process of cult programming interms of Scientology, because
you know if you can take a pieceof information and just go,
well, yeah, because it coversthe concept that there's
multiple points of view.
So in fact and I haven't lookedat this policy in decades, so I
did not look at this newly forthis interview, but as by my
(13:11):
recollection and paraphrase, oneof the examples given is if you
have a car accident, you know,and eight people witnessed the
car accident.
They're each going to havedifferent perspectives of what
happened and they're each goingto have different perspectives
of what happened, and you know,and also kind of just looking at
different points of view andinformation and perspective.
So, yeah, I was like, you know,it's referred to as the
(13:38):
multiple viewpoint system inScientology.
So I was like, well, what'swrong with reading Barefaced
Messiah by Russell Miller?
It's just a viewpoint.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Right, very good.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
It was the.
You know, like I said it was.
It was just it's ironic to melooking back, like, why was I so
afraid to even just read a book?
But it speaks again to thelevel of programming that any
Scientologist has put through,particularly in my case, since I
started learning the languageof Scientology when I was four
years old, before I even had agood grasp of the english
language.
(14:07):
Wow, so yeah, anyway.
But yeah, so this, thesepolicies, right here is uh,
let's see the enemy line.
If we were to print them allout, we're talking probably 50
pages of documents.
Uh, that's just the premise fora declare order.
So, yeah, a lot Anyway, solet's move along here.
(14:32):
Okay, so this paragraph, this iswhat made me reach out to you.
I'll just read it out 10.
I've gathered and studied allethics files for that individual
, for the individual beingdeclared, as well as gathered
any other knowledge reports andconfessional knowledge reports
not in the ethics files.
(14:52):
Stop right there and you go,wait a minute.
What do you mean?
Knowledge reports andconfessional knowledge reports
not in the ethics files?
Well, let me explain it to you.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
So, as you know, the policy is that anytime someone
writes a knowledge report, itgets filed in the person's
ethics file.
However, confessional knowledgereports makes reference to the
fact of when someone is gettinginterrogated as part of their
(15:29):
processing, their counseling.
On the grade chart, so you know, grade two is deals with overts
and withholds, and so that's,for example, when you do the
obnoxious Joburg sex check andanyway you go through multiple
interrogations, and becauseyou're doing the interrogations
(15:49):
as part of your grade chart oryour bridge or you're, you know,
getting up to clear, it iswhat's called non actionable.
So it's, it's Scientology'sequivalent of, you know, when
you go to the priest and theyforgive you for your sins.
In fact, there's even astatement that the auditor makes
(16:11):
at the end of each of thesecounseling sessions to forgive
the person for those sins.
My point being that when you'reexiting Scientology or you're
being declared by them, all betsare off.
That's right.
When you're exiting Scientologyor you're being declared by
them.
All bets are off.
That's right.
Who doesn't matter?
Doesn't matter that it was partof a you know, confessional or
you know, or again this thismakes reference to the PC
(16:33):
folders being marked asconfessional, priest, penitent,
privileged.
You know that whole statementthat's on every single PC folder
, which is where all thecounseling is recorded in great,
great, gory detail.
So, yeah, so this is theexamples of like, where, to me,
(16:59):
this outlines exactly like.
You know, when people ask well,what if Tom Cruise were to
leave Scientology, would theyhave dirt on him?
Hell, yes, anything he's everconfessed to, whether it be to
an ethics officer, a counseloror anything else.
It's it listed out right there.
What are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Well, that's.
I mean because look this is theeternal battle, right For
journalists like me and peoplewho have left, like you.
You come out, mark comes out,so many other people come out,
talk to journalists like me andwe go over what's been said in
the past and what's been writtenin the past.
(17:40):
And every single new person whocomes out says, yes, we learn
about xenon ot3.
Yes, we get declared.
Yes, um, they will use anythingyou've said at any time against
you if, if they decide you'rean enemy and they want to smear
(18:02):
you online.
I mean, every single person hassaid this every single time.
But what happens is the churchgoes into court or goes to big
media companies and says andthey argue in court look, the
Catholic religion has thispriest penitent privilege, so do
we?
(18:22):
I mean, anything these peoplesay in their sessions is
completely confidential.
We would never use thatmaterial right.
And the big publications feelobliged not only to give
Scientology's statement but tokind of give it weight, and that
just always drives me crazy.
It's like you know they're lying, you know they're lying Right,
(18:44):
but they lie to the courts aswell.
It drives me crazy.
It's like you know they'relying, you know they're lying
Right, and and then all.
But they lie to the courts aswell.
It's just, it drives me crazy.
So this is what happens timeand time again.
The people who come out tell uswhat's really going on.
Scientology says no, no, no, no.
And then eventually we get adocument like this, which once
again proves that the peoplelike you who are coming out are
(19:04):
the ones telling the truth Yep,and that Scientology lies about
everything Yep.
I don't know how many times wehave to learn that lesson, but
it just happens again and again.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
I know, I know it's absolutely.
I know it's not surprising toyou and I, but it is.
When you just go at every turn.
You know, and I think one ofthe more infamous ones was the
we don't practice disconnection.
You know the Tommy Davis.
Big faux pas.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Well, another one that comes to mind here and I'm
glad you pointed that out,because I didn't.
I didn't really notice thatwhen I published it, but but,
but I but, I have experiencewith that, particularly in Laura
DiCrescenzo's lawsuit.
And that one comes to mindbecause, you know, laura was
suing Scientology for nine yearsin Los Angeles.
(19:56):
The Los Angeles Times in thatnine years never wrote a single
word about her or her lawsuit.
The only things about herlawsuit that ever appeared in
the la times were ap storiesthey republished.
They never bothered to send areporter anyway.
Um, one of the contentions inthat lawsuit was pretty early on
(20:17):
, laura.
Laura and her attorneys haddemanded all of her files right,
because she was suing overbeing abused in the Sea Org and
in particular being coerced intohaving an abortion at only 17.
She was technically a child andhey, that'll be in there, that
will be in those files if theycan get them.
(20:37):
So they fought and fought, andfought and the judge said of
course you can have your files.
Sure Order, order.
Scientology fought, it, fought.
It Went to appellate court.
Lost.
Went to state appellate court,lost.
Went to the US Supreme Court.
And what makes me so sick everytime I think about this, this
Burt Deixler, right, who's gotthis great reputation as a
(21:00):
wonderful attorney in LosAngeles Ooh, he has a bookstore.
Burt, as a wonderful attorneyin Los Angeles Ooh, he has a
bookstore.
Bert Dykesler was their attorneyon that and he was telling the
California Supreme Court andthen the US Supreme Court that
the reason Scientology shouldnot be forced to turn over those
files is because they containedconfidential religious material
(21:21):
.
They had to admit that Laura'sfiles had been shared with over
200 Scientology officials.
That's confidential, but 200people had looked through them,
right.
What makes me so sick is hekept talking about oh, that
material is so religious, judge,we can't, we can't.
(21:43):
You know that's a violationbecause that's religious
material.
And the US Supreme Court didn'tfall for it either.
They finally had to turn overthose files.
What's in them?
Sick annotations of how thispoor child was abused.
She was sad because she was 13years old and missed her mother,
and so they punished her for it.
(22:04):
That's what was in the files.
That's what Burt Deixler wastelling courts was religious
material.
That's the kind of thing thatshould get an attorney kicked
out.
I don't.
That's what drives me crazy iswhen they have these attorneys
lying for them?
Yeah, because we knowScientology lies.
But when they have these reallyhigh reputation attorneys
(22:24):
willing to lie and I wishsomeday when Scientology is
finally in bankruptcy becausethe FBI has raided them, I wish
someday I could sit down withBurt Dykstra and say Burt, tell
me the truth.
Did you say that because youhad actually seen what was in
those files and that struck youas being religious?
(22:46):
Or did you say that justbecause David Miscavige told you
to do it?
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Right, completely, and I guarantee it's the latter,
because he wouldn't have lookedin the folders.
Why would he.
Probably not.
Yeah, they get on their highhorse about, and again, you're
right, it's Scientology'sdocumented practice of using
religious protections to coverup abuse and crimes, day in, day
(23:14):
out.
They've been doing it fordecades.
And now you know as we talkedabout too this, this whole
arbitration nonsense that nowthat's the next level that
they're adding.
Because ask me, tony, in my 30years in Scientology, how many
times did I see an arbitration?
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Never.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Never, exactly Never.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
And thank goodness I don't know if Laura's case would
have been susceptible or not,right she sued in 2009.
They didn't start using thatarbitration thing in court until
the Garcia case in 2013.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Right, so neither Laura's case nor our case.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Had that issue Right.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
We did not.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
They just maybe hadn't dreamed that up yet, but
what happened?
Speaker 1 (24:01):
That's exactly what they hadn't done.
They hadn't dreamed that up,yet they hadn't used their
million dollar law firms toconcoct their next loony bin
excuse as to how they can use,you know, get away with just
covering up what they they, howthey abuse people and anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Yeah, we could go on and on about it and anyway, yeah
, we could go on and on aboutthat.
For those who are curious andmaybe don't know her case that
well because it's been a while,she sued for nine years $2,000.
In 2018, she had to win twomotions for summary judgment.
I don't even know why they gottwo a second time, but I was in
court for both of those.
(24:41):
Twice.
She had to run that gauntletand had to be deposed, and all
this stuff took years and yearsand years.
Finally, and then she got herfiles.
They went all the way to the USSupreme Court for that
Incredible case.
Again, not one word in LA Times.
And then finally, in 2018, theyhad a trial date.
They finally had a trial dateand the coup de grace was that
(25:07):
Laura's attorneys, just beforethe trial, served Dave so he
would have to attend, and that'swhen Dave were a check to make
it all go away.
But I mean, there's no way Davecould allow a trial anyway.
There's no way a jury is notgoing to hear this stuff and be
absolutely fucking horrified.
(25:28):
So, that's why Scientology can'tlet your case go to a trial,
can't let Laura's case, can'tlet Leah's case there's no way
Like right now in Laura's case.
Can't let Leah's case there'sno way Like right now that
Leah's case.
I'm making all these argumentsabout things, but Dave knows
there's a jury sitting therelistening to how a church
supposedly a church is callingLeah Remini a bigot and a racist
(25:54):
and all these ridiculous thingsonline and slimy her and her
kid Right.
Oh, that wouldn't last fiveminutes in front of a jury, and
Dave knows it.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Yep, you're absolutely right, but it is it
is so great.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Get back to this subject.
It is so great to have it inblack and white.
There it is.
They, they pull from everywhere.
They pull every bit of dirtthey possibly can on you to
write a declare confidentiality.
Give me a break.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Right, exactly, it's no holds barred, nothing, no, no
, there's nothing.
They won't do to completelysmear and destroy the character
of the person to be declared.
Exactly, right.
So then here I'm just going topop this back up here.
Yep, yeah, I've also gathereddata from the CFs, the case
(26:43):
supervisor, supervisors and anyother staff member who had
dealings with that individual.
What does that mean?
The moment the person escapedor took off or whatever, or you
know, ran away, or um, they,scientology, will go around and
make every single staff memberright Knowledge reports on that
(27:05):
person, uh, and of course,they're gone.
So you know, they're it.
Technically, I mean whateverthat's, that's the wrong word to
say in Allegedly by the policywritten, you're supposed to be
able to face your accuser.
Well, of course that doesn'thappen.
Point being that that's whatthis is in reference to.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Well, the way I understand it, Claire, is
there's two different reports.
People write on each other Aknowledge report, a KR the
person being written about getsa copy.
But then there's also somethingcalled a things that should not
be report, and the person beingwritten about does not get a
copy of that.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
That's right.
Allegedly.
I've often made reference tothis, though, like I wrote a
things that shouldn't be reporton my stepfather, hugh Witt the
very same Hugh Witt who wasnamed to counter my expert
witness testimony in the DannyMasterson trial.
Completely to mess with my headIn, I think, 99 or I was in
(28:09):
Religious Technology Center, sohe did not.
He didn't even physically knowwhere I worked for 14 years.
By the way, side comment, Iwrote a things that shouldn't be
report on him.
He was given a copy of that bythe way, and then he promptly
didn't talk to me for two years,the punchline being that my
(28:29):
mother had to tell me two yearslater by the way, he's not
speaking to you because youwrote a report on him.
I was like what, that pointbeing like, how often did I see
my family?
Never, I didn't even notice intwo years that my stepfather
wasn't speaking to me.
But yeah, that's the thingsthat shouldn't be reported.
(28:53):
So yeah, you're right.
Anyway, back to this.
This would include reports andethics files kept by other
churches, such as an advancedorganization or flag, as these
would be relevant to writing theissue.
And yeah, that's in referenceto you, you could end up with
multiple ethics files inmultiple organizations, though I
(29:14):
will say that even in the lateryears that I was there, they
were working on a computerizedpersonnel and ethics database.
Did you ever hear about thisproject, tony?
I?
Speaker 2 (29:28):
don't think so.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Oh yeah, so the point was to scan in every knowledge
report from every organizationanywhere, also going through the
person's auditing folders,their PC folders and any other
files, and computerizing acomplete record of that person's
entire Scientology history thatwould then be accessible by
(29:53):
multiple organizations.
Guess who was running thatproject Shelley Miscavige.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
That wasn't called InCommerce.
That's something else.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
That's something else .
Yeah, no, this was thepersonnel slash ethics database
project.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Right, yeah, well, I, I assume they've got something
like that now.
But even today we can see whenthey're opening these ideal orgs
.
They still have these massivecentral files projects.
So Scientology is, it's clear.
Even if they have computerizedto a certain extent, scientology
is still completely committedto the idea of paper files on
everybody.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Yes, 100%, and they can't change that because that's
Hubbard policy obviously.
Though you know that, becausethat's Hubbard policy, obviously
, Though you know, anyway,that's a conversation for
another day.
Okay, so then let's see whatelse to hear.
I think that was the main.
To obtain this information,send a telex to the director of
inspections and reports or amaster at arms of those orgs,
(30:50):
informing them that you'reputting together an SP declare
on that person and why, and forthem to send you reports and any
other relevant data.
I know it's just, it's justmind boggling right here.
Let me see what I have nexthere and then here.
I think you highlighted this inyour post, so I included it
(31:12):
because, yeah, let's go throughthese.
I've written the declare issuein accordance with the above
references and a test that Ithink your favorite on this was
the issue does not spread, oh no, the issue does not engender
sympathy for the person beingdeclared.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
That's just amazing.
I mean, you know you wouldn'tthink if somebody had really
committed crimes and you werelisting these horrible crimes a
person committed, you wouldn'tthink for a moment that I hope
people aren't going to like theperson because of that.
But of course you know the waythese are written.
The crimes are so ridiculousthat they have to be careful
(31:55):
that they aren't turning thesepeople into martyrs and heroes.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Correct, yeah, exactly, which which is yeah.
And my favorite was the issuedoes not spread black PR, so
black propaganda.
So just to kind of back up fora moment there, this would be,
for example, if Billy Bob saysbob says well, I'm out of here
because david miscavige punchedme in the face, uh, so they
(32:21):
can't say, oh, billy bob allegedright, david miscavige punched
me in the face and 50 peoplewatched him do it, because that
would be black propaganda orblack public relations, whatever
, I can't right because it'sinterchangeable.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Somebody looking at it might say, well, is david
muskavage hitting people andthat's not the thought you want
to cross their mind?
These are written again.
We'll say it again.
It's not just for the personthat's been kicked out but for
other people to read.
So they look at it and go, oh,look at the horrible things this
person did.
Thank goodness they're gone,gone.
Yes and the last thing you wantis any kind of sympathy there
(32:57):
at that point.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
That's exactly right, and preferably even read it and
go oh yeah, that's right.
I remember back in 1962, he wasmean to me too, so let me write
another knowledge report on himfor that too.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
And.
I like this other one.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I didn't notice before and I, like this other
one, I didn't notice before thelisted high crimes are all in
capital letters, right, I knowthat struck me too.
I was like um, and I of courseI've seen many.
Uh, you know it, goldenrod isactually loosely termed.
It's not just a declare, it'sany action taken by the ethics,
(33:35):
by the ethics department, socommittee of evidence, which
I've had, I think, threecommittees of evidence in my
years in the C organization andyeah, I, it's funny because I
saw that and I was like I didn'trealize that that was actually
a thing probably dictatedsomewhere in Hubbard's policy,
like it needs to be capitalletters, like the yesteryear
(33:58):
version of yelling over text.
Right, oh, my gosh, yes, oh,and the facts are covered and
dead agent data on the person isincluded in the body of the
issue.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I mean, we kind of touched on this already, but
just to reiterate, I mean it's akey concept in Scientology that
comes from Hubbard, and that isyou know, people leave
Scientology.
They're unhappy, they criticizethe church rather than answer
those allegations.
So, in other words, you knowsomebody comes out of the church
and says you know, they usethis terrible leverage to rip my
(34:34):
family apart.
Scientology never comes backand says, no, they're
misinterpreting the thing.
No, they come back and say youknow that person is, you know
they're committing this crime orthat crime.
They go after the person'sreputation and what Hubbard said
about that was if you can smearthem, they become a dead agent.
(34:56):
In other words, nobody willlisten to them.
So it doesn't matter if theircriticism is valid, if you've
gone after their reputation, andthat's what they do to me, to
you, to Leah, to Mike, to Ron,every single person.
They never tried to answer theallegations we were making about
what the Church of Scientologydoes, tried to answer the
(35:17):
allegations we were making aboutwhat the Church of Scientology
does.
They all went after ourcharacter with just nonsense.
You know to try to make andthen you can see it.
So you know, for example, theythrow certain stupid things at
me that are untrue, but then Iwill see somebody like a whale,
somebody that I've, you know,talked about.
They've given millions ofdollars and something will come
up about me online that says oh,I know all about that guy.
(35:39):
He did X, y and Z.
That's why the dead edge ofmaterial is for to give
Scientologists something theycan use to automatically dismiss
that person.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
That's what they want to do.
Yep, exactly, they want no onewho's exited Scientology to have
a voice ever, under anycircumstances.
Not only they would like tothink that they have that
control over the general public,but that's not really what's
important to them.
It's to keep the remainingmembers in, like, keep my mother
(36:13):
in Scientology and not talkingto me in like, keep my mother in
Scientology and not talking tome.
Keep my sisters, my brother,you know, people that know, knew
me personally uh, who, who Iwould be able to influence to
leave Scientology, you knowanyway, yes, crazy, crazy.
Okay, let's see here.
Oh, I had a very specificreason for including this, tony.
(36:37):
Just to kind of highlightsomething.
So I've submitted the completedstaff work to AVC-INT Ethics
Authority.
This is Authorization,Verification, Correction,
International Ethics Authority.
So AVC is the unit that has toapprove any and all anything
(36:59):
that's issued in Scientology,even communications that would
go to management.
And I was in ABC in ReligiousTechnology Center from 97 until
the year 2000.
In 2004, when I was removedfrom Religious Technology Center
(37:22):
for the quote, unquote crime ofrefusing to divorce my husband,
Mark of 13 years, the entireAVC unit was also removed from
Religious Technology Center andplaced under Commodore's
Messenger OrganizationInternational.
So it was moved under managementfor one reason, and one reason
(37:45):
only, because it was inReligious Technology Center
which created a paper trail thatproved and documented that
David Miscavige approveseverything right yeah, anyway,
and again, obviously moving itfrom one moving avc from
(38:08):
religious technology center tocommodore's messenger org
doesn't change anything becausestill, everything that gets done
in Scientology is based onDavid Miscavige's orders.
I just I wasn't sure if youwere aware of that move and the
purpose in the history ofScientology.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
I mean, I know that ABC is one of those really
important things in Scientologythat rarely gets discussed,
rarely gets exposed, but I knowhow important it is, but I was
not aware of that move.
But that sounds exactly likewhat is going on right now in
Leah Remini's lawsuit, where shenot only sued the Church of
(38:52):
Scientology International thatruns all of these scummy online
accounts that are smearing her,but she also sued RTC and Dave.
And then in court RTC said well, there's nothing in here that
is specifically about us we wantout.
And so the judge thankfullygave Leah a little time so that
(39:13):
you and Mike Rinder could writedeclarations and say look,
church Scientology internationaldoesn't do a thing without the
approval of RTC and DavidMiscavige Exactly like what
you're saying right here.
And that's the thing is likethey've set it up this way so
they can go into court and saythings like that, Like, oh, all
(39:33):
RTC does is assure the purity ofthe tech.
Rtc would never get involved inanything as sorted as a smear
campaign.
And of course you and Mike,your declarations, say of course
they do.
Rtc runs everything, DavidMiscavige runs everything.
So we'll see how that plays outin court, but it's so
frustrating.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Yeah, by the way, do you know how?
I'm sure you've seen thisbefore, but I don't think you
and I have ever talked aboutthis and you likely already know
this, but it's worth mentioningin this context anyway, in my
opinion, on any organization,org board, the chart, the
structure that they have up onthe walls by mandate of L Ron
(40:15):
Hubbard in every organization,Religious Technology Center is
depicted on every singleorganizing chart as a triangle,
like a little flag in the upperwhat is it?
Upper left corner.
Have you seen that before?
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah, I don't know if I've ever noticed that.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Yeah Well, the reason why it's that shape and size is
because Religious TechnologyCenter isn't governed by the
chain of command that mandatesevery other organization in
Scientology.
That triangle represents thatthey can go in at any level,
(40:56):
anywhere, as a policingorganization of Scientology.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
And that was key to the 2002, what was it affidavit
that Von Young submitted thatfinally won Lawrence
Wollersheim's case after allthose years was that Von Young
put together this beautifulaffidavit where he explained the
(41:24):
real structure of Scientologyand he said look, there's this
whole alphabet soup CSI, asi,cst, rtc but all that matters is
that the Sea Org runseverything and can step in at
any time.
It says it right here the SeaOrg at any time can walk into
any org and take over and theSea Org is run by only one
(41:48):
person the captain of the SeaOrg.
And the captain of the Sea Orgis David Miscavige.
He put that together.
Lawrence Wollersheim had beenfighting for decades to get his
money out of Scientology.
They had always vowed not onethin dime for Wollersheim, and
that one affidavit was soeffective and showed that
(42:09):
Scientology was always makingthese excuses.
Well, this organization doesn'thave control of the money and
we don't know where the money is.
And it's like no, davidMiscavige runs everything.
He knows where the money is.
And the day that that affidavitwas going to be discussed in
open court and I went down tothe courthouse, scientology came
(42:29):
in with a $9 million check tomake it go away.
They did not want that affidavitbeing discussed because it's so
go away.
They did not want that affidavitbeing discussed because it's so
.
It's such a great indictment ofhow Scientology is really set
up.
For one man and Scientologyknows that's dangerous.
If the IRS gave a shit, that'sexactly the kind of thing that
(42:49):
they're not supposed to be doingand anyway, so that's, you're
right.
I mean it's an alphabet soup.
Look at that.
I mean you know ABC, rtc, wdc,watchdog Committee, right?
I mean it doesn't matter.
David Miscavige is captain ofthe Sea Org and he doesn't like
being called captain in court.
We found out about that.
(43:10):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
You know it's funny, you're talking about that
declaration.
Of course I knew nothing aboutLarry Waller-Schein his case,
(43:34):
none of that.
But I was working in ReligiousTechnology Center at that time
and had to were talking inpromotional materials about the
Sea Organization, and that'salso right around the time that
David Miscavige stopped wearingSea Org uniform.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
I think the last time I've seen him in one was in
2006 on Maiden Voyage week onthe free wins Yep.
He wore one, which I thoughtwas interesting because he had
the captain's jacket but a bowtie.
That's the last time I rememberseeing him and he was listed on
(44:20):
the screen as Captain DavidMiscavige.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
There you go.
Somebody probably got sent tothe Rehabilitation Project Force
for that slip up.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
All right, let's see here.
I just have a couple more here.
Thanks for doing this with me,tony.
I appreciate it.
All right, so this is just oneof the policies that was
referenced in that checklistSuppressive Acts, suppression of
Scientology and Scientologists,and of course, you know you can
Google this and see this in allof its glorious mundane detail.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
That's the big one, right.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
It is the big one.
It is the big one.
This is a little off topic, butI saw this when I was looking
at the policy.
The families and adherents ofsuppressive persons or groups
may not receive processing.
It does not matter whether theyare or are not Scientologists.
If the families or adherents ofsuppressive persons or groups
(45:13):
are knowingly processed, anyauditor doing so is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
So, for context, davidMiscavige's father, ron
Miscavige may he rest in peacean amazing person who wrote the
book Ruthless, is obviously asuppressive person by
(45:33):
Scientology policies, as youwould say of David Miscavige's
niece, jenna Miscavige, who alsowrote a book Beyond Belief, and
I could list more and morefamily members, by the way, the
point being that David Miscavige, according to this, cannot be
(45:54):
processed.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
He's an illegal PC.
But you know what, Claire?
He doesn't get processing rightand he hasn't since, like the
early 90s, right.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Correct.
That's right.
He has not since 1993, to myknowledge received any
Scientology counseling.
And this is just one policy.
By the way, there are manyother policies, personnel
policies, that say that, by thissame premise, anyone who is
connected to a suppressiveperson does not qualify for an
(46:24):
executive position inScientology.
So yeah, the head ofScientology, by this premise, is
a potential trouble source.
So no wonder Scientology isshrinking and failing.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
Right, it's good to be king is a potential trouble
source.
So no wonder Scientology isshrinking and failing right.
It's good to be king, and whenyou're king, obviously the rules
don't apply to you.
And he not only is violatingthese rules, but look, I mean
yeah, I mean that's.
I think that may be the numberpeople ask me.
Okay, you get to interviewmiscavige first thing.
(46:56):
You ask him what are you gonnaask him?
And I've thought about that andI and I thought that maybe the
best first question to ask davidmiscavige is are you a still a
scientologist?
Do you get audited?
Speaker 1 (47:10):
yep, and, and I get.
We get asked this, thisquestion, the time, and so I'm
curious to know your answer tothis.
Do you think he's a staunchbeliever or do you think he's
just?
Speaker 2 (47:24):
a power hungry psychopath, right?
That's the eternal question.
And I think it applies toHubbard as well.
And maybe one thing that I'vedone that maybe most journalists
don't have time for is Iactually have gone back and read
hundreds of Hubbard's lectures,the early ones.
(47:47):
My favorite vintage is 1963.
That's when he's the most offthe hook with all the space
opera and stuff.
I've read all those and, yeah,you have to ask yourself when
he's telling people, for example, that you can create a car out
(48:07):
of thin air, that's not a bigdeal.
The big deal is to you know,that's always his move.
It's like people will teach mehow can I make a car out of thin
air?
No, no, that's the easy part.
Let's talk about the hard part.
Right, that's always his move.
Right, he always acts like a.
So when you're thinking aboutthat, come on, he knows.
He knows he can't create a carout of thin air.
(48:28):
So what is he doing?
Right?
He's messing with people, right, isn't he messing with people?
And once you get that thought inyour head, now go back and read
those early lectures.
Oh, it's just all over theplace.
In virtually every lecture he'sseeing how far he can push
these people, like I'm going tothrow this out there and see if
these idiots buy it.
You can really see this kind ofsneering disregard for his own
followers.
So I've always thought, okay,there's the con man thing.
(48:51):
Right, he knowingly he'sconning these people, he knows
it, he's actually kind ofenjoying it, he's seeing how far
he can push them.
He doesn't believe a word of it.
On the other hand, I rememberLawrence Wright talking about
this that if it was just aboutmoney, he had made so much money
(49:11):
he could walk away.
And then Lawrence hadinterviewed steve faul and I
think this is the lecture that.
I think that's the interviewthat I think really moved a lot
of people and that's the idea ofl ron hubbard in his final days
out at the ranch near creston,california, and he's asking
steve faul to go check.
(49:32):
He thought he saw phhaeton outby the fence.
Can you go check that?
Okay, sure, okay, he wasprobably starting to become
senile, but it suggests thatthere was some level where he
had started to buy into all ofthis.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
And.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
I think with a unique figure like L Ron Hubbard, it
is possible to be both.
It is possible both to knowthat you're lying to people,
know that you're conning people,but then also sort of believe
yeah, I did discover the secretsof the universe.
I really have traveled to Venus, these things are real.
I think it's possible for boththose things to inhabit in L Ron
(50:12):
Hubbard.
Okay, so then you go to Dave inL Ron Hubbard.
Okay, so then you go to Dave.
You see similar evidence onboth sides.
I mean, we know that he seesthe actual enrollment figures.
We know that David Miscavige,of all people, knows this whole
line that Tommy Davis wouldspout.
We've had more expansion in thelast five years than we've had
(50:34):
in 50.
They're just making it up.
We know that David Miscavigeknows the real numbers are
terrible.
He's lying, he's just a con man.
On the other hand, there arethe stories about the copper
rods at base at gold the copperrods where he wanted to be able
to discharge charge into theground or whatever, and that he
(50:57):
did not like to be aroundchildren.
He really felt that body thingscould leap off of children and
get onto him.
So I don't know how much stockto put in that.
I've heard different thingsfrom people that knew him and
say I wouldn't put that muchstock in it.
I think it is possible that withDavid Miscavige, like with L
Ron Hubbard, it's a combinationwhere he knows the real numbers,
(51:18):
he knows he's lying to people,he knows that they don't achieve
these things in scientology.
On the other hand, it's sotempting to think that, yeah,
you are the most important humanbeing on the entire planet,
right, isn't that?
What isn't that what tom cruisetold nasa boniati that the most
important person on the planettoday is David Miscavige.
(51:38):
Right, you know, maybe Davebuys that.
So I think it is possible to beboth.
But on the other hand, if hehasn't had auditing since 1993,
how can he be the ecclesiasticalleader of Scientology?
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Right, I mean, that's just not.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
You make a good point too, I mean that's.
Speaker 1 (51:53):
you make a.
You make a good point too.
Um, I will say that you know inthe eight years that I worked
very closely with David andShelly Miscavige absolutely
hands down, I think he's in thetop three.
He might actually be number one.
I'd have to think about thatfor a moment.
The most paranoid individual Ihave ever met and like assuming
(52:19):
that people were out to get him,assuming, you know, that people
were spying on him and watchinghim and this and that and the
other thing.
And that actually wasoriginally why I understood he
was refusing auditing because hedidn't trust any of the
counselors or the people whowere going possibly trust an
auditor with your innermostsecrets.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
There's no way.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
Right, right, exactly so.
He was never, but it was alwaysdeflected and it was always
their fault.
But it's funny, because if youpause for a second, you know,
and this is a side here at thispoint.
Speaker 2 (52:50):
Yeah, this is a side here just because you know, I've
been in Scientology facilities.
I've been in Scientologyfacilities, I've read all the
books, I've read all theHubbard's lectures.
But people sometimes will askme, yeah, but have you been
audited?
And especially indies are verycritical of a journalist and say
, yeah, but haven't had auditing, right.
And I'm like, yeah, because I'mnot crazy, right?
(53:11):
One person did try to give mean auditing session and, like
the first question, I said we'reshutting this down.
I'm not giving you my innermostsecrets.
Why?
Who are you?
How do you deserve them?
You know what I'm saying.
It's such an unequal powerposition to be audited by
somebody and it is designed forone thing I know indies in
particular will tell you oh,it's designed to make you feel
(53:33):
better.
No, it's designed to make youfeel better.
No, it's designed to getdamaging material out of you
that can be used against youlater.
Speaker 1 (53:38):
Why would I?
Speaker 2 (53:39):
subject myself to that.
I'd never Completely Sorry.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Yeah, no, no, you're absolutely right.
But so back to David Miscavigeand his paranoia.
Just to complete the thought,the funny thing is that exactly
how he carries himself out isliterally almost a depiction of
how L Ron Hubbard describes asuppressive person.
(54:01):
Hubbard's description of asuppressive person is that they
are frozen on the time trackfighting aliens or fighting
Martians, I think was the exactterm used and therefore they're
just fighting everybody.
That's what David Miscavigedoes on a on a day in, day out
basis, at least by my personalobservation.
(54:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Crazy.
Speaker 1 (54:26):
Yeah, anyway, okay, let's see here.
I think we're almost done withthese slides.
Let me get it back up here justto make sure.
Uh, okay, oh yeah, this wasjust another bit of a off topic,
but where a person is secretlyplanning to leave and making
(54:47):
private preparations to do sowithout informing the proper
terminals in an org, and doesleave below and does not return
within a reasonable length oftime, an automatic declare is to
be issued.
So the reason I brought this inwas for context.
My last slides are my, mysuppressive person declare.
(55:10):
So obviously it's talking aboutunauthorized.
So obviously it's talking aboutunauthorized, like someone's
(55:30):
planning to escape, which, to meagain, just using the word blow
deflects from the fact thatthey're not allowed to leave at
any time.
Even if you go on Scientology'swebsite right now, it says in
clear, bold letters a staffmember can leave at any time,
but not according to this, notaccording to this, right, okay?
And so, tony, question for youwhat would you consider a
reasonable length of time?
Does not return within areasonable length of time?
Speaker 2 (55:54):
Well, they leave it subjective, because when david
miscavige, it's like when markhenley runs down the road, it's
the first 10 seconds he's notback.
Speaker 1 (56:02):
That's it yeah, okay, which is kind of my point,
because here let's get to thenext one now.
Uh, okay, so here we go.
Oh, I jumped one, sorry hold on.
I jumped one, sorry hold.
On 27 January 2005, three daysafter I'd escaped.
Speaker 2 (56:23):
And, by the way, the day after I'd escaped, my family
was shown this, according to mymother and now that you see how
much the rigmarole they have togo through to produce this,
it's even more impressive, right?
Speaker 1 (56:43):
Right, exactly so.
Suppressive person declareClaire Hedley Witt is hereby
declared a suppressive person.
Claire was a staff member ofthe Church of Scientology
International.
Because that's where, aka, thehole is, where I escaped from.
I was in the hole.
I had been kicked out ofReligious Technology Center, as
I said, for refusing to divorcemy husband, mark Headley, of 13
years at the time, church ofScientology International.
(57:05):
She intentionally deserted herposition in the church in
violation of HCOPL leaving andleaves.
When given the chance tostandardly handle her situation
per LRH policy, claire refusedand chose to be declared oh my
God, the word salad when giventhe chance to standardly handle
(57:26):
her situation.
Oh, you mean when you sent fivestaff to intercept me and I had
to sit on my purse in the LasVegas bus station, surrounded by
Greg Wilhair, sharon Johnstonwhoever else knows that was
outside waiting in the car todrag me back.
That's when I was given thechance to standardly handle my
(57:48):
situation.
Oh my gosh.
Investigation found that Clairehas a history of out tech and
squirreling.
This is what I mean.
When Mark was like damn honey,wow, and what does that even
mean?
Like, what does that even mean?
(58:10):
Not one specific Claire hasaudited above her classification
and committed out tech,including auditing PCs on false
purpose rundown procedurewithout any certificates.
Yeah, because Shelly Miscavigetold me to stop creating reasons
why I couldn't do my job and tojust get it done.
(58:33):
That's why she also audited OTswithout training or
certification to do so.
When Claire was responsible forthe training and correcting of
staff, she directed others toaudit above their training level
.
Thus it's cut off anyway.
You get the idea.
Speaker 3 (58:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:55):
And then the final one Claire has given up her
rights as a Scientologist by heractions and she may not receive
the benefits of the codes ofthe church.
Blah, blah, blah.
Her only terminal in the churchis the International Justice
Chief, except that he wasn'tallowed to talk to me because
I'd been at the base.
(59:15):
Except that he wasn't allowedto talk to me because I'd been
at the base.
So actually it was KirstenCatano, warren McShane and Greg
Wilhair who talked to me, and Idon't know if I ever told you
this story, tony, but two monthsafter we had escaped and we now
had co-signed an apartment withMark's dad, bernie, and gotten
jobs, and we were doing greatand getting back on, you know,
(59:39):
getting our feet on the ground,warren McShane called and said
you know, your, your SP declarewas put on hold, which I have
that in writing from GregWilhair in January.
They wanted us to go back anddo a leaving staff security
check interrogation.
So I kept saying, hey, what'sthe deal?
(59:59):
What's the deal?
What's the deal?
It's on hold, cause I wastrying holding out hope that I
might be able to speak to myfamily again.
And so Warren McShane called inApril.
So, again like January,february, march, april, three
months later, and says, oh yeah,it will stay on hold, but you
(01:00:23):
have to come back and do therehabilitation project force.
That was a hell, no, hell, no.
You're insane anyway.
Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
But you know it works on a lot of people.
I mean, I've talked to a lot ofpeople that escaped.
But you know it works on a lotof people.
I mean, I've talked to a lot ofpeople that escaped and then
they get that call Like, oh, youknow, you should come back and
route out properly.
And so they do.
And then they have to escapeall over again, right, and they
totally regret going back andlike, say, valerie Haney, for
example, valerie Haney had thisincredible escape.
(01:00:54):
She hid in the trunk of a car ofan actor in order to get out of
it base last possible day forthat she could do it Amazing
escape.
Her father was still aScientologist and he's like,
listen, I really think youshould go back and route out
properly.
So she did and she went back.
They promised her it would onlytake three weeks, months later
she's like you got to let me go.
(01:01:14):
You got to let me go.
And so they made her sit downand sign a document that they
have been using against her eversince in court.
So you know, that's the thingis is if there's some way we
could communicate to thesepeople that are leaving don't
worry about your freeloader debtand don't go back.
(01:01:35):
You don't have to go back.
There's no purpose in it, itonly serves them.
Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
Yeah, yeah.
Paraphrasing a brilliant quoteby Mike Rinder, he said the way
you can tell a cult is what theydo when you try to leave Yep.
So yep, you're absolutely right.
Anyway, that's all I had, tony,but thanks, as always, for a
fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
It's always great to touch base with you and hear
your thoughts and perspectives,and thanks for listening to mine
that you and Mark have bothdone, and it's interesting to
see you being talked about inmore court documents and you're
right in the middle of things.
So I'm just hats off.
I know how much harassment youguys have been through and it
(01:02:25):
just seems like every time Ihear from you guys you're doing
great, so I'm really happy aboutthat.
Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
I appreciate it, tony , and same to you.
Thanks for the work that youhave relentlessly done for so
many years, and we'll, we'll,keep at it, keep going, and
there you go until next time.
Bye.
Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Thanks for watching.
If you'd like to help supportthe channel, feel free to check
out the merch store link in thedescription.
We have hail Zinu Zinu is myhomeboy and BFG branded mouse
pads, shirts, mugs, all sorts ofother stuff in there that helps
us to bring you new content ona regular basis.
You can also pick up a copy ofmy book Blown for Good Behind
(01:03:07):
the Iron Curtain of Scientologyin hardback, kindle and audible
versions as well.
There's also a link to ourpodcast and you can get that on
Apple, spotify or wherever youlisten to podcasts.
And if you'd like to watchanother video, you can click on
this link right here, or youcould click on this one here, or
(01:03:28):
you can click on the subscribebutton right here.
Thanks a lot, until next time.
Welcome back to the channel.
I'm your host for today, claireHeadley, and I am joined today
by none other than Tony Ortega.
Hey, tony, good to see you.
Hello, claire, thank you forhaving me on.
Of course, always a pleasure.
Yes, it has been a minute sincewe've talked and done anything,
(00:35):
so of course, we often makereference to your blog, which I
will link in the description tothis video as well, and that
post that you put up a few daysago is what inspired me to want
to have this conversation withyou.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Yeah, that was very nice to hear from you.
I you never know what is goingto hit with readers.
You know I'm at Substack now,tonyortegasubstackcom, and I
like to cover what's happeningright now in Scientology as far
as what kind of you knowpromotional materials we can get
out so we get a sense of whatthey're doing.
(01:14):
I like to cover the litigationgoing on, so I have some really
big posts this week about LeahRemini's lawsuit.
Part of it is on appeal and welook at those documents.
But also I like the history ofScientology.
I like to go back and look atthings that have happened in the
past and there are somedocuments from around the era of
2005, 2007 that have beengradually coming out, and it's
(01:38):
just so many of them that ittakes a while to kind of sift
through them and I thought thiswas kind of an interesting
document from that era and I putit up and, wow it was.
It got even more reaction thanI expected and then when I heard
from you, then I knew I'dreally hit pay dirt, because I
know something like that.
You know it's not going toimpress you too much, but the
way that one did, what do youwant me to describe it?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yes, sure, and, and actually before we do that, we
do that.
I wanted to give a bit more ofan intro of you, because I'm
sure I've known of you and yourwork exposing Scientology since
2009, but I think you were doingit even before that.
When did your work exposingScientology as a journalist
begin?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
This November will be 30 years, Claire.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Wow, there you go.
Congratulations for yourupcoming anniversary and thank
you for your dedication andpersistence.
As you know, I know it's notfor the faint of heart, and
anyway, I just wanted to kind ofgive you a tip of the hat and a
pat on the back or whateverelse for just day in, day out,
(02:47):
consistently doing the work.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, thank you, yeah , and I was so fortunate that in
that time 2009, when I got toknow you guys Mark's book was
coming out.
I was the editor-in-chief ofthe Village Voice in New York,
so I got to write about Mark'sbook for that.
That was great.
And then you guys went throughthat stupid legal thing where
Scientology was basically tryingto blackmail you and I got to
write about that.
So I was very fortunate that Igot to write about some really
(03:11):
interesting things in your story.
And then, of course, we've keptin touch over the years and
I've had a website over atTonyOrtegaorg, but now I'm at
Substack, which I really, reallylike.
It's adfree.
That's the best thing aboutthose long stories is you're not
going to be bugged with ads,but anyway, and it's a good
platform for posting documentslike this.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yes, yes, absolutely so.
With that said, go ahead, andthen we'll pull up.
As I mentioned before westarted, I have some slides and
I also felt it was fitting tothrow in my SP to Claire, just
since it was Well, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
That's why I'm really looking forward to what you
know your thoughts are on thisdocument.
Yes, I mean, one of the thingsI think you learn about very
early on.
When you're learning aboutScientology somebody that's
never been in, like myself thefirst things you learn is this
idea of a suppressive personthat L Ron Hubbard, when he was
(04:07):
inventing all this stuff back inthe early 50s, was talking
about survival, and the thingthat makes survival difficult is
called suppression, and then hedecided that the people that
had become enemies of the churchwhich he started calling it
after 1953, were suppressivepeople.
These were people that not onlywere keeping you, holding you
(04:29):
back, but were holding back thechurch of Scientology.
So it was basically the way thechurch declares an enemy is an
SP.
Most of the time whenScientology declares an SP, it's
somebody who was in the churchof Scientology that has run
afoul of the organization in oneway or the other, and
traditionally you knowScientology.
(04:50):
One of the things that I loveabout Scientology is that it
documents everything right.
It just it writes everythingdown, which is great for me as a
journalist.
And so when they decided todeclare you as an enemy in the
old days.
They wanted to make sure youknew about it, and so they would
give you what's called adeclare or declare order.
They would declare you asuppressive person, and to make
(05:13):
sure that it stood out, thatparticular kind of issue was put
on golden rod paper.
Right, that's a yellow orangishpaper.
So people would talk about didyou get your golden rod when you
got declared Okay?
So now you know the lingo rightand these things were when
people were getting kicked outin the 60s, 70s and 80s.
(05:33):
You would expect you'd get tonot only see your declare, but
you'd probably get a copy.
And the other thing that wascharacteristic and you can tell
me if I'm wrong about this,claire was that you know who
knows why they were reallykicking you out.
Maybe you looked at L RonHubbard the wrong way, or maybe
you said something to DavidMiscavige.
He didn't like.
But by the time they puttogether a declare and gave it
(05:56):
to you, it listed all thesehorrible crimes that you're
supposedly guilty of.
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Yes, completely 100%.
Mark Mark, teasing me all thetime he's like oh, I thought you
were a rule follower and thatyou were, uh, you know, like he
didn't think I was ever going toleave just because I was born
into it and, you know, all myfamily was in and so forth.
But anyway to your point.
He jokes that when, when I gotmy declare, he was like man,
(06:27):
you're worse than me, you'relike the wicked witch of the
west.
According to that documentwhich we'll get to, right.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
So they and so they.
They do that.
They make it and as anotheraside, it's probably worth it
here is that you know there'sbeen all this stuff lately about
neiliman, who was aScientologist, grew up in
Scientology, and the famoussci-fi fantasy author who's now
being accused of terrible sexualproblems with these women, and
(06:54):
so there's been a lot ofcoverage and I have been
covering the Gaiman family foryears and years and years, and
so a lot of reporters havecalled me and they all want to
ask me about David Gaiman'sDeclare.
Because, see, neil's father,david Gaiman, was probably the
most well-known Scientologist inall of the United Kingdom.
He was the spokesman forScientology in England and at
(07:16):
one point he was declared andthey put out this goldenrod
about him.
He then went back in laterBecause that's the other thing
about it is, you can work yourway back in, but this declare is
awful.
It accuses of all these sexualcrimes.
And so all these reporters havecalled me and I said listen,
you've got to understand.
The one thing you cannotbelieve is a declare Okay, just
(07:38):
because it says all these thingsabout him doesn't mean any of
it happened.
So please keep that in mind.
I mean, maybe he did some badthings, I don't know, but you
cannot take the declare asevidence of anything, all right,
so that's the background.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Yeah, no.
And to add to that, why?
Because, as you said, most ofthose declared have exited
Scientology, so Scientology usesthe declare as a vessel by
which they, in Scientology'swords, dead agent.
That person, so they will notbe listened to, will have no
(08:17):
influence or voice with anyother Scientologists.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Right.
And so they're writing thedeclare, not only to tell you
why you're being kicked out andyou're an enemy, but then they
show it to other people toexplain.
This is why this person's gonenow and this is why you should
never talk to them again.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Exactly, exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
So you know again, this is very well known in
Scientology.
We all know about declares andgolden rods and people like you
that are shocked by the thingsthat are listed in your declare.
Why this new document is sointeresting is that it's the
first time I've seen it.
It's the actual checklistyou're supposed to follow when
you write a declare.
(08:55):
This is the instructions onwhat you're supposed to do.
I mean, my very firstimpression when I saw this was
man, writing a declare is a painin the butt.
All these issues and referencesyou have to look up and then
all these steps you have tofollow and of course, it's
Scientology, so it's repetitiveand a lot of busy work.
(09:19):
But yeah, there it is.
Here's what you need to do towrite a declare and, of course,
now that we can see it.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
it makes perfect sense, right, claire?
Of course there's a checklistlike this is a checklist for is
outlined.
You know I've often commentedthat the ideal Sea Org member in
my opinion is an android.
Like no emotion, just get itdone, do the steps you know, and
if you're not going to do it,then they'll get rid of you and
(10:01):
someone else will do it.
You know, that's just kind ofthe nature of the organization
and how it works.
But yes, I know completely it's.
I'm going to put my glasses onbecause I'm getting old, so I'm
going to go ahead and pull upthe first slide here so we can
take a look here.
Let me see here.
There we go.
Ok, let's see here.
(10:23):
That works.
You can see that, all right.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
There we go.
Okay, let's see here that works.
You can see that.
All right, I'm just pulling itup on mine as well so that I
have a real close vision of it.
Where is it?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You should see it on the screen here, do you not?
Maybe you don't see it on yourscreen.
Oh, here it is here it is, I'msorry, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I was just pulling it up on my own, just so that I'm
okay.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
No, no, you're good.
So checklist for assembling asuppressive declare issue.
And again, you just describedwhat this is.
Yeah, and, by the way, so Ijust took this screenshot
because look at all thesepolicies writing of an ethics
order, how to write an EDO order, writing a declare order,
(11:13):
completed staff work, how to getapproval of projects and
actions.
I mean, on any one of thesepolicies, tony, we could
probably spend four hours goingthrough the policy right.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
We could probably spend four hours going through
the policy right.
My question for you, though,when I saw that was okay, this,
like I said, to me this lookslike a lot of work.
On the other hand, all of thosemight be very familiar to
somebody like you.
Would you, in other words, whenthey put that list, you would
say, oh, I know all these, noproblem.
Or would they?
Would that take you some workor not?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
No, no, all these, no problem, or would that take you
some work or not?
No, no, I mean.
So.
For example, let's see thefirst three writing of an ethics
order, how to write an ED order, writing a declare order.
Those are all in OEC volume one.
So it's the green volumes.
There's the seven green volumes, from zero to seven, and then
(12:03):
there's the management series.
Also, many of these referencesare included in multiple volumes
, like completed staff work.
You study that policy before youeven become a member of the C
organization, like it's 101, butgosh, the amount of times
(12:25):
probably any staff memberstudies some of these is in the
hundreds easily.
So, yeah, absolutely Very, veryfamiliar.
The viewpoint policy that'salways a funny one for me
because that's kind of what Iused to begin my deconstruction
(12:46):
process of cult programming interms of Scientology, because
you know if you can take a pieceof information and just go,
well, yeah, because it coversthe concept that there's
multiple points of view.
So in fact and I haven't lookedat this policy in decades, so I
did not look at this newly forthis interview, but as by my
(13:11):
recollection and paraphrase, oneof the examples given is if you
have a car accident, you know,and eight people witnessed the
car accident.
They're each going to havedifferent perspectives of what
happened and they're each goingto have different perspectives
of what happened, and you know,and also kind of just looking at
different points of view andinformation and perspective.
So, yeah, I was like, you know,it's referred to as the
(13:38):
multiple viewpoint system inScientology.
So I was like, well, what'swrong with reading Barefaced
Messiah by Russell Miller?
It's just a viewpoint.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Right, very good.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
It was the.
You know, like I said it was.
It was just it's ironic to melooking back, like, why was I so
afraid to even just read a book?
But it speaks again to thelevel of programming that any
Scientologist has put through,particularly in my case, since I
started learning the languageof Scientology when I was four
years old, before I even had agood grasp of the english
language.
(14:07):
Wow, so yeah, anyway.
But yeah, so this, thesepolicies, right here is uh,
let's see the enemy line.
If we were to print them allout, we're talking probably 50
pages of documents.
Uh, that's just the premise fora declare order.
So, yeah, a lot Anyway, solet's move along here.
(14:32):
Okay, so this paragraph, this iswhat made me reach out to you.
I'll just read it out 10.
I've gathered and studied allethics files for that individual
, for the individual beingdeclared, as well as gathered
any other knowledge reports andconfessional knowledge reports
not in the ethics files.
(14:52):
Stop right there and you go,wait a minute.
What do you mean?
Knowledge reports andconfessional knowledge reports
not in the ethics files?
Well, let me explain it to you.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
So, as you know, the policy is that anytime someone
writes a knowledge report, itgets filed in the person's
ethics file.
However, confessional knowledgereports makes reference to the
fact of when someone is gettinginterrogated as part of their
(15:29):
processing, their counseling.
On the grade chart, so you know, grade two is deals with overts
and withholds, and so that's,for example, when you do the
obnoxious Joburg sex check andanyway you go through multiple
interrogations, and becauseyou're doing the interrogations
(15:49):
as part of your grade chart oryour bridge or you're, you know,
getting up to clear, it iswhat's called non actionable.
So it's, it's Scientology'sequivalent of, you know, when
you go to the priest and theyforgive you for your sins.
In fact, there's even astatement that the auditor makes
(16:11):
at the end of each of thesecounseling sessions to forgive
the person for those sins.
My point being that when you'reexiting Scientology or you're
being declared by them, all betsare off.
That's right.
When you're exiting Scientologyor you're being declared by
them.
All bets are off.
That's right.
Who doesn't matter?
Doesn't matter that it was partof a you know, confessional or
you know, or again this thismakes reference to the PC
(16:33):
folders being marked asconfessional, priest, penitent,
privileged.
You know that whole statementthat's on every single PC folder
, which is where all thecounseling is recorded in great,
great, gory detail.
So, yeah, so this is theexamples of like, where, to me,
(16:59):
this outlines exactly like.
You know, when people ask well,what if Tom Cruise were to
leave Scientology, would theyhave dirt on him?
Hell, yes, anything he's everconfessed to, whether it be to
an ethics officer, a counseloror anything else.
It's it listed out right there.
What are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Well, that's.
I mean because look this is theeternal battle, right For
journalists like me and peoplewho have left, like you.
You come out, mark comes out,so many other people come out,
talk to journalists like me andwe go over what's been said in
the past and what's been writtenin the past.
(17:40):
And every single new person whocomes out says, yes, we learn
about xenon ot3.
Yes, we get declared.
Yes, um, they will use anythingyou've said at any time against
you if, if they decide you'rean enemy and they want to smear
(18:02):
you online.
I mean, every single person hassaid this every single time.
But what happens is the churchgoes into court or goes to big
media companies and says andthey argue in court look, the
Catholic religion has thispriest penitent privilege, so do
we?
(18:22):
I mean, anything these peoplesay in their sessions is
completely confidential.
We would never use thatmaterial right.
And the big publications feelobliged not only to give
Scientology's statement but tokind of give it weight, and that
just always drives me crazy.
It's like you know they're lying, you know they're lying Right,
(18:44):
but they lie to the courts aswell.
It drives me crazy.
It's like you know they'relying, you know they're lying
Right, and and then all.
But they lie to the courts aswell.
It's just, it drives me crazy.
So this is what happens timeand time again.
The people who come out tell uswhat's really going on.
Scientology says no, no, no, no.
And then eventually we get adocument like this, which once
again proves that the peoplelike you who are coming out are
(19:04):
the ones telling the truth Yep,and that Scientology lies about
everything Yep.
I don't know how many times wehave to learn that lesson, but
it just happens again and again.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
I know, I know it's absolutely.
I know it's not surprising toyou and I, but it is.
When you just go at every turn.
You know, and I think one ofthe more infamous ones was the
we don't practice disconnection.
You know the Tommy Davis.
Big faux pas.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Well, another one that comes to mind here and I'm
glad you pointed that out,because I didn't.
I didn't really notice thatwhen I published it, but but,
but I but, I have experiencewith that, particularly in Laura
DiCrescenzo's lawsuit.
And that one comes to mindbecause, you know, laura was
suing Scientology for nine yearsin Los Angeles.
(19:56):
The Los Angeles Times in thatnine years never wrote a single
word about her or her lawsuit.
The only things about herlawsuit that ever appeared in
the la times were ap storiesthey republished.
They never bothered to send areporter anyway.
Um, one of the contentions inthat lawsuit was pretty early on
(20:17):
, laura.
Laura and her attorneys haddemanded all of her files right,
because she was suing overbeing abused in the Sea Org and
in particular being coerced intohaving an abortion at only 17.
She was technically a child andhey, that'll be in there, that
will be in those files if theycan get them.
(20:37):
So they fought and fought, andfought and the judge said of
course you can have your files.
Sure Order, order.
Scientology fought, it, fought.
It Went to appellate court.
Lost.
Went to state appellate court,lost.
Went to the US Supreme Court.
And what makes me so sick everytime I think about this, this
Burt Deixler, right, who's gotthis great reputation as a
(21:00):
wonderful attorney in LosAngeles Ooh, he has a bookstore.
Burt, as a wonderful attorneyin Los Angeles Ooh, he has a
bookstore.
Bert Dykesler was their attorneyon that and he was telling the
California Supreme Court andthen the US Supreme Court that
the reason Scientology shouldnot be forced to turn over those
files is because they containedconfidential religious material
(21:21):
.
They had to admit that Laura'sfiles had been shared with over
200 Scientology officials.
That's confidential, but 200people had looked through them,
right.
What makes me so sick is hekept talking about oh, that
material is so religious, judge,we can't, we can't.
(21:43):
You know that's a violationbecause that's religious
material.
And the US Supreme Court didn'tfall for it either.
They finally had to turn overthose files.
What's in them?
Sick annotations of how thispoor child was abused.
She was sad because she was 13years old and missed her mother,
and so they punished her for it.
(22:04):
That's what was in the files.
That's what Burt Deixler wastelling courts was religious
material.
That's the kind of thing thatshould get an attorney kicked
out.
I don't.
That's what drives me crazy iswhen they have these attorneys
lying for them?
Yeah, because we knowScientology lies.
But when they have these reallyhigh reputation attorneys
(22:24):
willing to lie and I wishsomeday when Scientology is
finally in bankruptcy becausethe FBI has raided them, I wish
someday I could sit down withBurt Dykstra and say Burt, tell
me the truth.
Did you say that because youhad actually seen what was in
those files and that struck youas being religious?
(22:46):
Or did you say that justbecause David Miscavige told you
to do it?
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Right, completely, and I guarantee it's the latter,
because he wouldn't have lookedin the folders.
Why would he.
Probably not.
Yeah, they get on their highhorse about, and again, you're
right, it's Scientology'sdocumented practice of using
religious protections to coverup abuse and crimes, day in, day
(23:14):
out.
They've been doing it fordecades.
And now you know as we talkedabout too this, this whole
arbitration nonsense that nowthat's the next level that
they're adding.
Because ask me, tony, in my 30years in Scientology, how many
times did I see an arbitration?
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Never.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Never, exactly Never.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
And thank goodness I don't know if Laura's case would
have been susceptible or not,right she sued in 2009.
They didn't start using thatarbitration thing in court until
the Garcia case in 2013.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Right, so neither Laura's case nor our case.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Had that issue Right.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
We did not.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
They just maybe hadn't dreamed that up yet, but
what happened?
Speaker 1 (24:01):
That's exactly what they hadn't done.
They hadn't dreamed that up,yet they hadn't used their
million dollar law firms toconcoct their next loony bin
excuse as to how they can use,you know, get away with just
covering up what they they, howthey abuse people and anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Yeah, we could go on and on about it and anyway, yeah
, we could go on and on aboutthat.
For those who are curious andmaybe don't know her case that
well because it's been a while,she sued for nine years $2,000.
In 2018, she had to win twomotions for summary judgment.
I don't even know why they gottwo a second time, but I was in
court for both of those.
(24:41):
Twice.
She had to run that gauntletand had to be deposed, and all
this stuff took years and yearsand years.
Finally, and then she got herfiles.
They went all the way to the USSupreme Court for that
Incredible case.
Again, not one word in LA Times.
And then finally, in 2018, theyhad a trial date.
They finally had a trial dateand the coup de grace was that
(25:07):
Laura's attorneys, just beforethe trial, served Dave so he
would have to attend, and that'swhen Dave were a check to make
it all go away.
But I mean, there's no way Davecould allow a trial anyway.
There's no way a jury is notgoing to hear this stuff and be
absolutely fucking horrified.
(25:28):
So, that's why Scientology can'tlet your case go to a trial,
can't let Laura's case, can'tlet Leah's case there's no way
Like right now in Laura's case.
Can't let Leah's case there'sno way Like right now that
Leah's case.
I'm making all these argumentsabout things, but Dave knows
there's a jury sitting therelistening to how a church
supposedly a church is callingLeah Remini a bigot and a racist
(25:54):
and all these ridiculous thingsonline and slimy her and her
kid Right.
Oh, that wouldn't last fiveminutes in front of a jury, and
Dave knows it.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Yep, you're absolutely right, but it is it
is so great.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Get back to this subject.
It is so great to have it inblack and white.
There it is.
They, they pull from everywhere.
They pull every bit of dirtthey possibly can on you to
write a declare confidentiality.
Give me a break.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Right, exactly, it's no holds barred, nothing, no, no
, there's nothing.
They won't do to completelysmear and destroy the character
of the person to be declared.
Exactly, right.
So then here I'm just going topop this back up here.
Yep, yeah, I've also gathereddata from the CFs, the case
(26:43):
supervisor, supervisors and anyother staff member who had
dealings with that individual.
What does that mean?
The moment the person escapedor took off or whatever, or you
know, ran away, or um, they,scientology, will go around and
make every single staff memberright Knowledge reports on that
(27:05):
person, uh, and of course,they're gone.
So you know, they're it.
Technically, I mean whateverthat's, that's the wrong word to
say in Allegedly by the policywritten, you're supposed to be
able to face your accuser.
Well, of course that doesn'thappen.
Point being that that's whatthis is in reference to.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Well, the way I understand it, Claire, is
there's two different reports.
People write on each other Aknowledge report, a KR the
person being written about getsa copy.
But then there's also somethingcalled a things that should not
be report, and the person beingwritten about does not get a
copy of that.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
That's right.
Allegedly.
I've often made reference tothis, though, like I wrote a
things that shouldn't be reporton my stepfather, hugh Witt the
very same Hugh Witt who wasnamed to counter my expert
witness testimony in the DannyMasterson trial.
Completely to mess with my headIn, I think, 99 or I was in
(28:09):
Religious Technology Center, sohe did not.
He didn't even physically knowwhere I worked for 14 years.
By the way, side comment, Iwrote a things that shouldn't be
report on him.
He was given a copy of that bythe way, and then he promptly
didn't talk to me for two years,the punchline being that my
(28:29):
mother had to tell me two yearslater by the way, he's not
speaking to you because youwrote a report on him.
I was like what, that pointbeing like, how often did I see
my family?
Never, I didn't even notice intwo years that my stepfather
wasn't speaking to me.
But yeah, that's the thingsthat shouldn't be reported.
(28:53):
So yeah, you're right.
Anyway, back to this.
This would include reports andethics files kept by other
churches, such as an advancedorganization or flag, as these
would be relevant to writing theissue.
And yeah, that's in referenceto you, you could end up with
multiple ethics files inmultiple organizations, though I
(29:14):
will say that even in the lateryears that I was there, they
were working on a computerizedpersonnel and ethics database.
Did you ever hear about thisproject, tony?
I?
Speaker 2 (29:28):
don't think so.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Oh yeah, so the point was to scan in every knowledge
report from every organizationanywhere, also going through the
person's auditing folders,their PC folders and any other
files, and computerizing acomplete record of that person's
entire Scientology history thatwould then be accessible by
(29:53):
multiple organizations.
Guess who was running thatproject Shelley Miscavige.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
That wasn't called InCommerce.
That's something else.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
That's something else .
Yeah, no, this was thepersonnel slash ethics database
project.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Right, yeah, well, I, I assume they've got something
like that now.
But even today we can see whenthey're opening these ideal orgs
.
They still have these massivecentral files projects.
So Scientology is, it's clear.
Even if they have computerizedto a certain extent, scientology
is still completely committedto the idea of paper files on
everybody.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Yes, 100%, and they can't change that because that's
Hubbard policy obviously.
Though you know that, becausethat's Hubbard policy, obviously
, Though you know, anyway,that's a conversation for
another day.
Okay, so then let's see whatelse to hear.
I think that was the main.
To obtain this information,send a telex to the director of
inspections and reports or amaster at arms of those orgs,
(30:50):
informing them that you'reputting together an SP declare
on that person and why, and forthem to send you reports and any
other relevant data.
I know it's just, it's justmind boggling right here.
Let me see what I have nexthere and then here.
I think you highlighted this inyour post, so I included it
(31:12):
because, yeah, let's go throughthese.
I've written the declare issuein accordance with the above
references and a test that Ithink your favorite on this was
the issue does not spread, oh no, the issue does not engender
sympathy for the person beingdeclared.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
That's just amazing.
I mean, you know you wouldn'tthink if somebody had really
committed crimes and you werelisting these horrible crimes a
person committed, you wouldn'tthink for a moment that I hope
people aren't going to like theperson because of that.
But of course you know the waythese are written.
The crimes are so ridiculousthat they have to be careful
(31:55):
that they aren't turning thesepeople into martyrs and heroes.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Correct, yeah, exactly, which which is yeah.
And my favorite was the issuedoes not spread black PR, so
black propaganda.
So just to kind of back up fora moment there, this would be,
for example, if Billy Bob saysbob says well, I'm out of here
because david miscavige punchedme in the face, uh, so they
(32:21):
can't say, oh, billy bob allegedright, david miscavige punched
me in the face and 50 peoplewatched him do it, because that
would be black propaganda orblack public relations, whatever
, I can't right because it'sinterchangeable.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Somebody looking at it might say, well, is david
muskavage hitting people andthat's not the thought you want
to cross their mind?
These are written again.
We'll say it again.
It's not just for the personthat's been kicked out but for
other people to read.
So they look at it and go, oh,look at the horrible things this
person did.
Thank goodness they're gone,gone.
Yes and the last thing you wantis any kind of sympathy there
(32:57):
at that point.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
That's exactly right, and preferably even read it and
go oh yeah, that's right.
I remember back in 1962, he wasmean to me too, so let me write
another knowledge report on himfor that too.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
And.
I like this other one.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I didn't notice before and I, like this other
one, I didn't notice before thelisted high crimes are all in
capital letters, right, I knowthat struck me too.
I was like um, and I of courseI've seen many.
Uh, you know it, goldenrod isactually loosely termed.
It's not just a declare, it'sany action taken by the ethics,
(33:35):
by the ethics department, socommittee of evidence, which
I've had, I think, threecommittees of evidence in my
years in the C organization andyeah, I, it's funny because I
saw that and I was like I didn'trealize that that was actually
a thing probably dictatedsomewhere in Hubbard's policy,
like it needs to be capitalletters, like the yesteryear
(33:58):
version of yelling over text.
Right, oh, my gosh, yes, oh,and the facts are covered and
dead agent data on the person isincluded in the body of the
issue.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I mean, we kind of touched on this already, but
just to reiterate, I mean it's akey concept in Scientology that
comes from Hubbard, and that isyou know, people leave
Scientology.
They're unhappy, they criticizethe church rather than answer
those allegations.
So, in other words, you knowsomebody comes out of the church
and says you know, they usethis terrible leverage to rip my
(34:34):
family apart.
Scientology never comes backand says, no, they're
misinterpreting the thing.
No, they come back and say youknow that person is, you know
they're committing this crime orthat crime.
They go after the person'sreputation and what Hubbard said
about that was if you can smearthem, they become a dead agent.
(34:56):
In other words, nobody willlisten to them.
So it doesn't matter if theircriticism is valid, if you've
gone after their reputation, andthat's what they do to me, to
you, to Leah, to Mike, to Ron,every single person.
They never tried to answer theallegations we were making about
what the Church of Scientologydoes, tried to answer the
(35:17):
allegations we were making aboutwhat the Church of Scientology
does.
They all went after ourcharacter with just nonsense.
You know to try to make andthen you can see it.
So you know, for example, theythrow certain stupid things at
me that are untrue, but then Iwill see somebody like a whale,
somebody that I've, you know,talked about.
They've given millions ofdollars and something will come
up about me online that says oh,I know all about that guy.
(35:39):
He did X, y and Z.
That's why the dead edge ofmaterial is for to give
Scientologists something theycan use to automatically dismiss
that person.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
That's what they want to do.
Yep, exactly, they want no onewho's exited Scientology to have
a voice ever, under anycircumstances.
Not only they would like tothink that they have that
control over the general public,but that's not really what's
important to them.
It's to keep the remainingmembers in, like, keep my mother
(36:13):
in Scientology and not talkingto me in like, keep my mother in
Scientology and not talking tome.
Keep my sisters, my brother,you know, people that know, knew
me personally uh, who, who Iwould be able to influence to
leave Scientology, you knowanyway, yes, crazy, crazy.
Okay, let's see here.
Oh, I had a very specificreason for including this, tony.
(36:37):
Just to kind of highlightsomething.
So I've submitted the completedstaff work to AVC-INT Ethics
Authority.
This is Authorization,Verification, Correction,
International Ethics Authority.
So AVC is the unit that has toapprove any and all anything
(36:59):
that's issued in Scientology,even communications that would
go to management.
And I was in ABC in ReligiousTechnology Center from 97 until
the year 2000.
In 2004, when I was removedfrom Religious Technology Center
(37:22):
for the quote, unquote crime ofrefusing to divorce my husband,
Mark of 13 years, the entireAVC unit was also removed from
Religious Technology Center andplaced under Commodore's
Messenger OrganizationInternational.
So it was moved under managementfor one reason, and one reason
(37:45):
only, because it was inReligious Technology Center
which created a paper trail thatproved and documented that
David Miscavige approveseverything right yeah, anyway,
and again, obviously moving itfrom one moving avc from
(38:08):
religious technology center tocommodore's messenger org
doesn't change anything becausestill, everything that gets done
in Scientology is based onDavid Miscavige's orders.
I just I wasn't sure if youwere aware of that move and the
purpose in the history ofScientology.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
I mean, I know that ABC is one of those really
important things in Scientologythat rarely gets discussed,
rarely gets exposed, but I knowhow important it is, but I was
not aware of that move.
But that sounds exactly likewhat is going on right now in
Leah Remini's lawsuit, where shenot only sued the Church of
(38:52):
Scientology International thatruns all of these scummy online
accounts that are smearing her,but she also sued RTC and Dave.
And then in court RTC said well, there's nothing in here that
is specifically about us we wantout.
And so the judge thankfullygave Leah a little time so that
(39:13):
you and Mike Rinder could writedeclarations and say look,
church Scientology internationaldoesn't do a thing without the
approval of RTC and DavidMiscavige Exactly like what
you're saying right here.
And that's the thing is likethey've set it up this way so
they can go into court and saythings like that, Like, oh, all
(39:33):
RTC does is assure the purity ofthe tech.
Rtc would never get involved inanything as sorted as a smear
campaign.
And of course you and Mike,your declarations, say of course
they do.
Rtc runs everything, DavidMiscavige runs everything.
So we'll see how that plays outin court, but it's so
frustrating.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Yeah, by the way, do you know how?
I'm sure you've seen thisbefore, but I don't think you
and I have ever talked aboutthis and you likely already know
this, but it's worth mentioningin this context anyway, in my
opinion, on any organization,org board, the chart, the
structure that they have up onthe walls by mandate of L Ron
(40:15):
Hubbard in every organization,Religious Technology Center is
depicted on every singleorganizing chart as a triangle,
like a little flag in the upperwhat is it?
Upper left corner.
Have you seen that before?
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah, I don't know if I've ever noticed that.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Yeah Well, the reason why it's that shape and size is
because Religious TechnologyCenter isn't governed by the
chain of command that mandatesevery other organization in
Scientology.
That triangle represents thatthey can go in at any level,
(40:56):
anywhere, as a policingorganization of Scientology.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
And that was key to the 2002, what was it affidavit
that Von Young submitted thatfinally won Lawrence
Wollersheim's case after allthose years was that Von Young
put together this beautifulaffidavit where he explained the
(41:24):
real structure of Scientologyand he said look, there's this
whole alphabet soup CSI, asi,cst, rtc but all that matters is
that the Sea Org runseverything and can step in at
any time.
It says it right here the SeaOrg at any time can walk into
any org and take over and theSea Org is run by only one
(41:48):
person the captain of the SeaOrg.
And the captain of the Sea Orgis David Miscavige.
He put that together.
Lawrence Wollersheim had beenfighting for decades to get his
money out of Scientology.
They had always vowed not onethin dime for Wollersheim, and
that one affidavit was soeffective and showed that
(42:09):
Scientology was always makingthese excuses.
Well, this organization doesn'thave control of the money and
we don't know where the money is.
And it's like no, davidMiscavige runs everything.
He knows where the money is.
And the day that that affidavitwas going to be discussed in
open court and I went down tothe courthouse, scientology came
(42:29):
in with a $9 million check tomake it go away.
They did not want that affidavitbeing discussed because it's so
go away.
They did not want that affidavitbeing discussed because it's so
.
It's such a great indictment ofhow Scientology is really set
up.
For one man and Scientologyknows that's dangerous.
If the IRS gave a shit, that'sexactly the kind of thing that
(42:49):
they're not supposed to be doingand anyway, so that's, you're
right.
I mean it's an alphabet soup.
Look at that.
I mean you know ABC, rtc, wdc,watchdog Committee, right?
I mean it doesn't matter.
David Miscavige is captain ofthe Sea Org and he doesn't like
being called captain in court.
We found out about that.
(43:10):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
You know it's funny, you're talking about that
declaration.
Of course I knew nothing aboutLarry Waller-Schein his case,
(43:34):
none of that.
But I was working in ReligiousTechnology Center at that time
and had to were talking inpromotional materials about the
Sea Organization, and that'salso right around the time that
David Miscavige stopped wearingSea Org uniform.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
I think the last time I've seen him in one was in
2006 on Maiden Voyage week onthe free wins Yep.
He wore one, which I thoughtwas interesting because he had
the captain's jacket but a bowtie.
That's the last time I rememberseeing him and he was listed on
(44:20):
the screen as Captain DavidMiscavige.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
There you go.
Somebody probably got sent tothe Rehabilitation Project Force
for that slip up.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
All right, let's see here.
I just have a couple more here.
Thanks for doing this with me,tony.
I appreciate it.
All right, so this is just oneof the policies that was
referenced in that checklistSuppressive Acts, suppression of
Scientology and Scientologists,and of course, you know you can
Google this and see this in allof its glorious mundane detail.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
That's the big one, right.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
It is the big one.
It is the big one.
This is a little off topic, butI saw this when I was looking
at the policy.
The families and adherents ofsuppressive persons or groups
may not receive processing.
It does not matter whether theyare or are not Scientologists.
If the families or adherents ofsuppressive persons or groups
(45:13):
are knowingly processed, anyauditor doing so is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
So, for context, davidMiscavige's father, ron
Miscavige may he rest in peacean amazing person who wrote the
book Ruthless, is obviously asuppressive person by
(45:33):
Scientology policies, as youwould say of David Miscavige's
niece, jenna Miscavige, who alsowrote a book Beyond Belief, and
I could list more and morefamily members, by the way, the
point being that David Miscavige, according to this, cannot be
(45:54):
processed.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
He's an illegal PC.
But you know what, Claire?
He doesn't get processing rightand he hasn't since, like the
early 90s, right.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Correct.
That's right.
He has not since 1993, to myknowledge received any
Scientology counseling.
And this is just one policy.
By the way, there are manyother policies, personnel
policies, that say that, by thissame premise, anyone who is
connected to a suppressiveperson does not qualify for an
(46:24):
executive position inScientology.
So yeah, the head ofScientology, by this premise, is
a potential trouble source.
So no wonder Scientology isshrinking and failing.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
Right, it's good to be king is a potential trouble
source.
So no wonder Scientology isshrinking and failing right.
It's good to be king, and whenyou're king, obviously the rules
don't apply to you.
And he not only is violatingthese rules, but look, I mean
yeah, I mean that's.
I think that may be the numberpeople ask me.
Okay, you get to interviewmiscavige first thing.
(46:56):
You ask him what are you gonnaask him?
And I've thought about that andI and I thought that maybe the
best first question to ask davidmiscavige is are you a still a
scientologist?
Do you get audited?
Speaker 1 (47:10):
yep, and, and I get.
We get asked this, thisquestion, the time, and so I'm
curious to know your answer tothis.
Do you think he's a staunchbeliever or do you think he's
just?
Speaker 2 (47:24):
a power hungry psychopath, right?
That's the eternal question.
And I think it applies toHubbard as well.
And maybe one thing that I'vedone that maybe most journalists
don't have time for is Iactually have gone back and read
hundreds of Hubbard's lectures,the early ones.
(47:47):
My favorite vintage is 1963.
That's when he's the most offthe hook with all the space
opera and stuff.
I've read all those and, yeah,you have to ask yourself when
he's telling people, for example, that you can create a car out
(48:07):
of thin air, that's not a bigdeal.
The big deal is to you know,that's always his move.
It's like people will teach mehow can I make a car out of thin
air?
No, no, that's the easy part.
Let's talk about the hard part.
Right, that's always his move.
Right, he always acts like a.
So when you're thinking aboutthat, come on, he knows.
He knows he can't create a carout of thin air.
(48:28):
So what is he doing?
Right?
He's messing with people, right, isn't he messing with people?
And once you get that thought inyour head, now go back and read
those early lectures.
Oh, it's just all over theplace.
In virtually every lecture he'sseeing how far he can push
these people, like I'm going tothrow this out there and see if
these idiots buy it.
You can really see this kind ofsneering disregard for his own
followers.
So I've always thought, okay,there's the con man thing.
(48:51):
Right, he knowingly he'sconning these people, he knows
it, he's actually kind ofenjoying it, he's seeing how far
he can push them.
He doesn't believe a word of it.
On the other hand, I rememberLawrence Wright talking about
this that if it was just aboutmoney, he had made so much money
(49:11):
he could walk away.
And then Lawrence hadinterviewed steve faul and I
think this is the lecture that.
I think that's the interviewthat I think really moved a lot
of people and that's the idea ofl ron hubbard in his final days
out at the ranch near creston,california, and he's asking
steve faul to go check.
(49:32):
He thought he saw phhaeton outby the fence.
Can you go check that?
Okay, sure, okay, he wasprobably starting to become
senile, but it suggests thatthere was some level where he
had started to buy into all ofthis.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
And.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
I think with a unique figure like L Ron Hubbard, it
is possible to be both.
It is possible both to knowthat you're lying to people,
know that you're conning people,but then also sort of believe
yeah, I did discover the secretsof the universe.
I really have traveled to Venus, these things are real.
I think it's possible for boththose things to inhabit in L Ron
(50:12):
Hubbard.
Okay, so then you go to Dave inL Ron Hubbard.
Okay, so then you go to Dave.
You see similar evidence onboth sides.
I mean, we know that he seesthe actual enrollment figures.
We know that David Miscavige,of all people, knows this whole
line that Tommy Davis wouldspout.
We've had more expansion in thelast five years than we've had
(50:34):
in 50.
They're just making it up.
We know that David Miscavigeknows the real numbers are
terrible.
He's lying, he's just a con man.
On the other hand, there arethe stories about the copper
rods at base at gold the copperrods where he wanted to be able
to discharge charge into theground or whatever, and that he
(50:57):
did not like to be aroundchildren.
He really felt that body thingscould leap off of children and
get onto him.
So I don't know how much stockto put in that.
I've heard different thingsfrom people that knew him and
say I wouldn't put that muchstock in it.
I think it is possible that withDavid Miscavige, like with L
Ron Hubbard, it's a combinationwhere he knows the real numbers,
(51:18):
he knows he's lying to people,he knows that they don't achieve
these things in scientology.
On the other hand, it's sotempting to think that, yeah,
you are the most important humanbeing on the entire planet,
right, isn't that?
What isn't that what tom cruisetold nasa boniati that the most
important person on the planettoday is David Miscavige.
(51:38):
Right, you know, maybe Davebuys that.
So I think it is possible to beboth.
But on the other hand, if hehasn't had auditing since 1993,
how can he be the ecclesiasticalleader of Scientology?
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Right, I mean, that's just not.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
You make a good point too, I mean that's.
Speaker 1 (51:53):
you make a.
You make a good point too.
Um, I will say that you know inthe eight years that I worked
very closely with David andShelly Miscavige absolutely
hands down, I think he's in thetop three.
He might actually be number one.
I'd have to think about thatfor a moment.
The most paranoid individual Ihave ever met and like assuming
(52:19):
that people were out to get him,assuming, you know, that people
were spying on him and watchinghim and this and that and the
other thing.
And that actually wasoriginally why I understood he
was refusing auditing because hedidn't trust any of the
counselors or the people whowere going possibly trust an
auditor with your innermostsecrets.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
There's no way.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
Right, right, exactly so.
He was never, but it was alwaysdeflected and it was always
their fault.
But it's funny, because if youpause for a second, you know,
and this is a side here at thispoint.
Speaker 2 (52:50):
Yeah, this is a side here just because you know, I've
been in Scientology facilities.
I've been in Scientologyfacilities, I've read all the
books, I've read all theHubbard's lectures.
But people sometimes will askme, yeah, but have you been
audited?
And especially indies are verycritical of a journalist and say
, yeah, but haven't had auditing, right.
And I'm like, yeah, because I'mnot crazy, right?
(53:11):
One person did try to give mean auditing session and, like
the first question, I said we'reshutting this down.
I'm not giving you my innermostsecrets.
Why?
Who are you?
How do you deserve them?
You know what I'm saying.
It's such an unequal powerposition to be audited by
somebody and it is designed forone thing I know indies in
particular will tell you oh,it's designed to make you feel
(53:33):
better.
No, it's designed to make youfeel better.
No, it's designed to getdamaging material out of you
that can be used against youlater.
Speaker 1 (53:38):
Why would I?
Speaker 2 (53:39):
subject myself to that.
I'd never Completely Sorry.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Yeah, no, no, you're absolutely right.
But so back to David Miscavigeand his paranoia.
Just to complete the thought,the funny thing is that exactly
how he carries himself out isliterally almost a depiction of
how L Ron Hubbard describes asuppressive person.
(54:01):
Hubbard's description of asuppressive person is that they
are frozen on the time trackfighting aliens or fighting
Martians, I think was the exactterm used and therefore they're
just fighting everybody.
That's what David Miscavigedoes on a on a day in, day out
basis, at least by my personalobservation.
(54:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Crazy.
Speaker 1 (54:26):
Yeah, anyway, okay, let's see here.
I think we're almost done withthese slides.
Let me get it back up here justto make sure.
Uh, okay, oh yeah, this wasjust another bit of a off topic,
but where a person is secretlyplanning to leave and making
(54:47):
private preparations to do sowithout informing the proper
terminals in an org, and doesleave below and does not return
within a reasonable length oftime, an automatic declare is to
be issued.
So the reason I brought this inwas for context.
My last slides are my, mysuppressive person declare.
(55:10):
So obviously it's talking aboutunauthorized.
So obviously it's talking aboutunauthorized, like someone's
(55:30):
planning to escape, which, to meagain, just using the word blow
deflects from the fact thatthey're not allowed to leave at
any time.
Even if you go on Scientology'swebsite right now, it says in
clear, bold letters a staffmember can leave at any time,
but not according to this, notaccording to this, right, okay?
And so, tony, question for youwhat would you consider a
reasonable length of time?
Does not return within areasonable length of time?
Speaker 2 (55:54):
Well, they leave it subjective, because when david
miscavige, it's like when markhenley runs down the road, it's
the first 10 seconds he's notback.
Speaker 1 (56:02):
That's it yeah, okay, which is kind of my point,
because here let's get to thenext one now.
Uh, okay, so here we go.
Oh, I jumped one, sorry hold on.
I jumped one, sorry hold.
On 27 January 2005, three daysafter I'd escaped.
Speaker 2 (56:23):
And, by the way, the day after I'd escaped, my family
was shown this, according to mymother and now that you see how
much the rigmarole they have togo through to produce this,
it's even more impressive, right?
Speaker 1 (56:43):
Right, exactly so.
Suppressive person declareClaire Hedley Witt is hereby
declared a suppressive person.
Claire was a staff member ofthe Church of Scientology
International.
Because that's where, aka, thehole is, where I escaped from.
I was in the hole.
I had been kicked out ofReligious Technology Center, as
I said, for refusing to divorcemy husband, mark Headley, of 13
years at the time, church ofScientology International.
(57:05):
She intentionally deserted herposition in the church in
violation of HCOPL leaving andleaves.
When given the chance tostandardly handle her situation
per LRH policy, claire refusedand chose to be declared oh my
God, the word salad when giventhe chance to standardly handle
(57:26):
her situation.
Oh, you mean when you sent fivestaff to intercept me and I had
to sit on my purse in the LasVegas bus station, surrounded by
Greg Wilhair, sharon Johnstonwhoever else knows that was
outside waiting in the car todrag me back.
That's when I was given thechance to standardly handle my
(57:48):
situation.
Oh my gosh.
Investigation found that Clairehas a history of out tech and
squirreling.
This is what I mean.
When Mark was like damn honey,wow, and what does that even
mean?
Like, what does that even mean?
(58:10):
Not one specific Claire hasaudited above her classification
and committed out tech,including auditing PCs on false
purpose rundown procedurewithout any certificates.
Yeah, because Shelly Miscavigetold me to stop creating reasons
why I couldn't do my job and tojust get it done.
(58:33):
That's why she also audited OTswithout training or
certification to do so.
When Claire was responsible forthe training and correcting of
staff, she directed others toaudit above their training level
.
Thus it's cut off anyway.
You get the idea.
Speaker 3 (58:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:55):
And then the final one Claire has given up her
rights as a Scientologist by heractions and she may not receive
the benefits of the codes ofthe church.
Blah, blah, blah.
Her only terminal in the churchis the International Justice
Chief, except that he wasn'tallowed to talk to me because
I'd been at the base.
(59:15):
Except that he wasn't allowedto talk to me because I'd been
at the base.
So actually it was KirstenCatano, warren McShane and Greg
Wilhair who talked to me, and Idon't know if I ever told you
this story, tony, but two monthsafter we had escaped and we now
had co-signed an apartment withMark's dad, bernie, and gotten
jobs, and we were doing greatand getting back on, you know,
(59:39):
getting our feet on the ground,warren McShane called and said
you know, your, your SP declarewas put on hold, which I have
that in writing from GregWilhair in January.
They wanted us to go back anddo a leaving staff security
check interrogation.
So I kept saying, hey, what'sthe deal?
(59:59):
What's the deal?
What's the deal?
It's on hold, cause I wastrying holding out hope that I
might be able to speak to myfamily again.
And so Warren McShane called inApril.
So, again like January,february, march, april, three
months later, and says, oh yeah,it will stay on hold, but you
(01:00:23):
have to come back and do therehabilitation project force.
That was a hell, no, hell, no.
You're insane anyway.
Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
But you know it works on a lot of people.
I mean, I've talked to a lot ofpeople that escaped.
But you know it works on a lotof people.
I mean, I've talked to a lot ofpeople that escaped and then
they get that call Like, oh, youknow, you should come back and
route out properly.
And so they do.
And then they have to escapeall over again, right, and they
totally regret going back andlike, say, valerie Haney, for
example, valerie Haney had thisincredible escape.
(01:00:54):
She hid in the trunk of a car ofan actor in order to get out of
it base last possible day forthat she could do it Amazing
escape.
Her father was still aScientologist and he's like,
listen, I really think youshould go back and route out
properly.
So she did and she went back.
They promised her it would onlytake three weeks, months later
she's like you got to let me go.
(01:01:14):
You got to let me go.
And so they made her sit downand sign a document that they
have been using against her eversince in court.
So you know, that's the thingis is if there's some way we
could communicate to thesepeople that are leaving don't
worry about your freeloader debtand don't go back.
(01:01:35):
You don't have to go back.
There's no purpose in it, itonly serves them.
Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
Yeah, yeah.
Paraphrasing a brilliant quoteby Mike Rinder, he said the way
you can tell a cult is what theydo when you try to leave Yep.
So yep, you're absolutely right.
Anyway, that's all I had, tony,but thanks, as always, for a
fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
It's always great to touch base with you and hear
your thoughts and perspectives,and thanks for listening to mine
that you and Mark have bothdone, and it's interesting to
see you being talked about inmore court documents and you're
right in the middle of things.
So I'm just hats off.
I know how much harassment youguys have been through and it
(01:02:25):
just seems like every time Ihear from you guys you're doing
great, so I'm really happy aboutthat.
Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
I appreciate it, tony , and same to you.
Thanks for the work that youhave relentlessly done for so
many years, and we'll, we'll,keep at it, keep going, and
there you go until next time.
Bye.
Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Thanks for watching.
If you'd like to help supportthe channel, feel free to check
out the merch store link in thedescription.
We have hail Zinu Zinu is myhomeboy and BFG branded mouse
pads, shirts, mugs, all sorts ofother stuff in there that helps
us to bring you new content ona regular basis.
You can also pick up a copy ofmy book Blown for Good Behind
(01:03:07):
the Iron Curtain of Scientologyin hardback, kindle and audible
versions as well.
There's also a link to ourpodcast and you can get that on
Apple, spotify or wherever youlisten to podcasts.
And if you'd like to watchanother video, you can click on
this link right here, or youcould click on this one here, or
(01:03:28):
you can click on the subscribebutton right here.
Thanks a lot, until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!