CLAIRE HEADLEY TESTIFIES: Danny Masterson Re-Trial, Day 12, end of day

May 03, 2023

Afternoon session, Day 12 (Day 8 of testimony) Danny Masterson retrial

Judge Olmedo: I understand the attorneys have something. Ms. Holley?

Holley: I just wanted to again ask the court to reconsider having Claire Headley testify as an expert. We've heard from JD3 and JD1 about Scientology rules as they know them to be. And Claire Headley, according to the proffer, does not have any expertise that rises to the level we expect in court. It gives her more credit than she deserves. It seems cumulative, 352, and not deserving of an expert designation.

Anson: the people disagree, her entire education is in Scientology. She was involved for 30 years. She has studied the principles for 10,000-plus hours. And this is an area outside the common knowledge of jurors and would assist them.

Holley: Ms. Anson and I have had a great working relationship including a conversation on Saturday with Ms. Headley which I greatly appreciate. And she indicated that she is not going to testify to her own experiences, but her observations of how things work, which we've had a great amount of testimony already. And 30 years experience, she left when she was 30. So to say she has 30 years experience does not go to her expertise.

Judge Olmedo cites her previous ruling, and that it was specific about this, and she says she went over Claire's documents about her expertise. Judge says she is still going to allow her. A member of a particular group can sometimes qualify as an expert of that group -- she cites gang members, for example. And it's particularly interesting that according to this report, Scientologists don't approve of or go to higher education. If that were the requirement, Scientologists could never become experts in their own faith. Obviously a lot has come in, but through the alleged victim, and because there's a broad charge of fabrication, then expert testimony makes it more probative. I am ruling that it is more probative than prejudicial. However, she points out that there are things in Claire's report that she doesn't think apply, but as far things related to reporting an assault will be allowed. It's for that purpose and not just a broad spectrum of Scientology practices.

Holley: I understand the ruling, but just that there has ben so much we've heard already, that's why I was bringing it up.

Judge Olmedo says she understands that and appreciates it. I will deem your objection continuing through this testimony.

Anson points out that she and Holley have talked off the record and that she has counseled Claire that she will not talk about escaping Scientology and not to use the word escape. That she is part of the Aftermath Foundation, that they help Scientologists leave and get on their feet, but not to use the word escape.

Judge Olmedo says her personal experiences are obviously not relevant, but she can put her job history as qualifications. But not her personal negative experiences.

Anson brings up the civil lawsuit that the Headleys had filed.

Judge Olmedo says the fact that they had sued and that it was for money may be brought in, but not the specific claims of the lawsuit. With regards to experts, you can lead with experts, so I would ask that both of you do so, so that you don't run afoul of the areas we've talked about it.

Anson brings up the $40,000 in fees that the Headleys were ordered to pay. There was some conversation with Claire where if you sign over the rights to his book, you won't have to pay this amount. They did not agree with that and paid.

Judge Olmedo: I don't want to get into any of that, just that the suit was filed, and they had to pay files.

Anson says there's a claim that her husband embezzled funds...

Judge: We're not going to get into any of that.

Anson goes out of the courtroom to talk with Claire.

The jury is brought in. Claire Headley is sworn in.

Direct examination of Claire Headley

Deputy DA Ariel Anson: What is Scientology?

Claire Headley: An applied philosophy that members apply to all aspects of their life -- work, friends, family, and so forth.

Are there laws members obey?

Yes.

How were you first exposed to it.

I was born into it. At 5 I was made to study policies. At 14 I was trained as a counsel and interrogation technique with the lie detector known as the E-meter. At 16 I became a member of the Sea Organization, the elite inner corps who are senior to all civilian Scientologists and manage organizations. At 16 I started working at the headquarters. And in 1996 I started working for the Religious Technology Center, which is the highest ecclesiastical organization, run by David Miscavige, the leader of Scientology. From 2000 to 2004 I was promoted within RTC, and on their org chart I was number 3. RTC is the policing organization that enforces Scientology.

In terms of the RTC, you said that's at the top.

Yes.

Is it fair to say there are orgs under RTC.

Yes. Many different management organizations, public organizations like Advanced Organization of Los Angeles, Celebrity Centre, the Flag Service Organization in Florida. The Office of Special Affairs, which deals with legal and PR. That's some examples.

The Advanced Org, is it sometimes called AO?

Yes.

What's the difference between AO and Celebrity Centre?

The CC deals with public who are people of influence. AO deal with advanced levels to OT 5.

CC and AO, are the individuals at AO in management, the same management at CC?

No, there are staff that are specifically at AOLA, all Sea Org members, and then separate staff at CC, also SO members.

Have you studied Scientology principles and practices?

Yes, extensively. At a conservative estimate 10,000 hours.

High school diploma?

No.

College?

No.

What are the qualifications in Scientology?

I began delivering counseling at 14. I was in the SO for 14 years. In addition many positions required that I extensively studied the Hubbard policies and advices, which is a computer record not generally available to the public.

At AO and CC, do they have all the policies and practices at those org?

No, they do not.

At RTC, did you have access to all of the policies and principles of Scientology?

Yes, I did. They had a computer system, Source Information Retrieval System, related to specific levels of Scientology, such as management the legal, every possible directive. Someone at CC would only have access to some policies in green volumes that the public would be able to access.

Have you ever testified in court as a Scientology expert?

No, I have not.

How do Scientologists view Scientology's rules as opposed to outside?

The rules direct how you respond to any situation, and are senior to, and how well you apply those laws of Scientology.

So if there is a rule in Scientology in conflict with a rule of the US, what is a Scientologist to do.

The Scientologist will follow the law of Scientology.

Is there an internal justice system in Scientology?

There is an internal justice system, yes.

If there is a crime that occurs to a member of Scientology, and the perpetrator is also member of Scientology, what is the process for the victim to do if they want to report the other member?

The process is that they are to write a KR to an ethics officer of their organization, and they will determine what steps will be taken within Scientology.

What is an ethics officer?

A person responsible for seeing to it that Scientologists adhere to their requirements as to their behavior, their participation in Scientology. And the ethics officer oversees the laws at an org level and deals with any reports that come in.

Is there an ethics officer assigned to AOLA?

Yes there is.

Is that the same as the ethics officer at CC?

They would be different people.

What is a KR?

Where you essentially write up details of transgressions. For example if someone would write something negative about Scientology, you would write something about that person to an ethics officer.

Do individuals write KRs about themselves or others?

It could be both ways. You can write one on yourself. It's not what generally happens. You are reporting your knowledge about something. I have seen someone write one on themselves, but mostly you would be writing one about your knowledge of someone else.

What is a Things That Shouldn't Be report?

There are many types of reports in Scientology . A Things That Shouldn't Be is when you don't know exactly who is at fault. If I were to write a KR on you, for example, I would be required to send you a copy. In a TTSB report, I am not required to send you a copy. Mostly because you don't know the exact facts, but you know there's a violation and you’re asking the ethics officer to look into it.

KR: How are those written, location?

Depends on the person we're talking about. For example in the time I was in the Sea Org, I would write one at my desk. Civilians would write one in the ethics department. There's not a fixed location, depends on the circumstance.

So sometimes it could be written outside and brought to an ethics officer, or written in the office.

Correct.

You mentioned "handling," what is that.

In Scientology, when there's a transgression and you're having a problem with your position, maybe struggle with your boss, the ethics officer will give you steps to help you address that situation.

If someone went to their ethics officer and reported another member for a crime, let’s say for rape. Is there a role the ethics officer takes in writing that report?

Yes, there is. In 1997 a code was implemented for things of a sensitive nature like rape were no longer written in reports. Copies go to RTC or OSA, and so they would use codes to remove those terms.

Would an ethics officer get involved in how that KR was written? Or supervise the writing?

Yes, the ethics officer would be involved, particularly when it's sensitive in nature and when it involves more than one Scientologist. And again, things of a sensitive nature are not written down. the priority in Scientology is to avoid anything that would give bad repute to Scientology. And Scientologists expect that another Scientology is handled inside the organization, that you would not report to the police. That you would need permission from the International Justice Chief to dos so. I would not see police called, it would be handled using Scientology justice procedures.

Would you agree a report written at AO might be taken to CC?

Yes, that would particularly happen when a Scientologist was at AO and another person at CC, that's where reports would cross, and anything sensitive would be sent to RTC, to OSA, and copies of those reports would go into all of the relevant files at those orgs.

What is the policy in terms in whether it's handwritten or on a computer?

I've seen both handwritten and typed. I would say in the early 2000s computers became much more relevant. And in a report of sensitive nature, typed is preferred because it will be sent to RTC and OSA. But there is not a policy that it must be handwritten or typed.

Is there any difference in handling a public person and a member of CC?

Different org, different staff. The CC also has the president's office staffed by people whose target audience is celebrities and people of influence, because that's a direction from Hubbard, to bring in people of influence.

What is "good standing."

It refers to your status as a Scientologist. Are you attending 12.5 hours of training per week? Are you donating to the IAS? You're bringing in other members, you're not talking negatively about Scientology and not violating its laws.

Have you heard of "ethics protection"

It's a policy written by Hubbard, which refers to the fact that Scientology or a staffer or member of SO is in good standing and doing what is expected of them then they have ethics protection. And if a report is received on them it should be "filed with a yawn."

What does "filed with a yawn" mean.

File it in a person's ethics file and take no further action.

Have you heard of the term Human Emotion &Reaction?

HE&R is a term that means any emotion. And that's not something you want to be expressing in your communication. Things like grief or anger.

When someone is writing a KR, what's the policy of including HE&R.

You are supposed to write the facts without any HE&R.

What does the word "victim" mean.

A negative term in Scientology, you are low on the emotional Tone Scale, which is states of being, from low to high. In the middle is 0.0, "body death." 0.1 is “victim.” Hubbard talks about that. Anyone below 2.0 is succumbing. That is what Scientology endeavors to improve. Anyone who is in a lower tone level is likely to lie and can't be trusted. Victim is 0.1, and victim is a negative word that Scientologists do not use. If something bad happens to you it's because you have committed bad transgressions.

The ethics officer would determine what steps were necessary if a crime is reported?

Correct.

If the victim wants to take it outside, what is the process/

They would be required to have special authorization to do that through the IJC. That's what written. Personally I've never seen that be approved, but that’s what's written in policy.

If a person requests permission from the IJC and the permisson denied, what happens to them if they not listen and still go to an outside org, like law enforcement.

It would be a "high crime," also known as a "suppressive act," and you would be named a "suppressive person," and you would lose connection with other Scientologists and also could result in you being expelled from Scientology.

What is a non-enturbulation order?

Scientology's version of a gag order. "Enturbulation" is disturbance, so you are not allowed to do that anymore, and you are put on notice publicly by a piece of paper put on the notice board, and anyone in the org knows you are under the gag order. And if you do anything else causing upset, you would be declared an SP.

If you are declared an SP, that person can be expelled from the organization?

Actually expelled from Scientology.

Is there any handling for someone who is declared?

Yes, they are ordered to complete A to E steps, to make a confession of crimes, pay back money you might owe, make up the damage, and do ethics condition to get back into good standing. The only person you can talk to during that is the IJC, who would then approve that you've done the steps, restoring you to good standing.

If an individual is speaking negatively about Sci, is there a policy about how that person can be handled.

We're talking about a civilian, a KR would be written by that person, and they would be called in to talked to the ethics officer to address what's going on.

A person who has been declared, if they are speaking negatively.

We are talking about someone who is in Scientology's eyes is an enemy. There are may policies of Fair Game which are to discredit, destroy utterly and undermine them so they do not speak negatively about Scientology anymore.

When did you leave Scientology?

January 2005.

Do you know the three victims in this case?

I do not.

Have you had conversations with them about the facts?

I have not.

Have you been provided reports about the facts?

I have not.

The Aftermath show, did you attend the finale of that show?

Yes, I did. I actually was in other episodes as well, but I did attend the finale.

As an audience member?

Yes.

How many guests appeared on the finale?

Maybe six or seven? I'm not sure. It was 2017 or 2018.

Were one of the guests, the person by the name of [Jane Doe 3].

Yes, she was there.

Have you ever had a conversation about the facts of this case?

We have not. And again I was one of 200 plus people in the audience.

In 2009 did you sue the church?

Yes, I did.

Was that lawsuit ultimately dismissed?

Yes it was.

And were you ordered to pay attorneys' fees?

Yes, which we paid.

Do you know Martin Whitt?

Hugh Martin Witt? Yes I do. He was my stepfather from when I was 8 until when I was 16 when he gave up parental rights to join the SO. (Obj, latter part stricken.)

Do you still have a relationship with him?

No, I do not.

Is he still in Scientology?

Yes, he is.

When someone leaves and is deemed an SP, can members still have a relationship with them?

No, they cannot. It is a policy.

What is the Aftermath Foundation?

It is a nonprofit organization. I am the treasurer, and I have been since January 2018. My time is entirely volunteer.

Are you given a salary?

No.

What does the Aftermath Foundation do?

It helps people leaving Scientology. For example, helps them build a resume, get a GED, I've even taught someone how to drive a car.

Have you been paid to testify today?

I have not.

Has your travel been paid for?

Yes. My ticket to fly here was paid for.

Why are you here today?

On my own volition to teach people about the practices of Scientology which I learned as a Sea Org member and in RTC for eight yearrs, and that is my goal.

No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Holley: You and I and Ms. Anson spoke Saturday.

We did.

We talked about two hierarchical charts of learning and training within the church.

I think you're referring to the grade chart or the Bridge to Total Fredom, which covers the counseling and training levels that Scientologists are expected to move up through.

And one of those charts goes up to OT 12?

It goes up to OT 15.

One to 12 and one to 15. One you went to 4, and the other you got to 8.

(Claire says 4 and 5, referring to OT 4 and Class 5 auditor.)

Do those relatively low levels you achieved describe your training?

They do not in terms of my management training.

You left in 2005, and you were 30?

Yes.

So for a large part of the time you were a child?

I worked for 14 years as a Sea Org member, working 80 plus hours a week. So maybe you might think of a 16-year-old as a child, but I was holding a management position.

But part of that time you were a baby and a child?

I spent my first 30 years in Scientology.

In the lawsuit you detailed things you said you endured. You said it was dismissed on the merits.

In the final ruling the judge said... (stricken.)

The claims you brought were dismissed.

Yes.

You appealed and lost.

Yes.

The Aftermath Foundation, is it named after the TV program?

I did not come up with the name, but yes I think it refers to the TV show, but also the purpose is to help people going through their own aftermath.

You have a close relationship with Leah Remini and Mike Rinder?

They are close friends of mine.

And Mr. Rinder connected you with Mr. Mueller?

Yes.

Is there someone in the Aftermath Foundation in the back of the courtroom/

Yes.

He is on the board of the organization?

Yes.

How long have you known him (Obj, sustained)

You appeared on the finale of the Aftermath TV show, and on other occasions.

Yes.

And at the finale, one of the Jane Does, JD3, was a guest.

Correct.

And she told about an incident about Mr. Masterson on the show.

I don't recall.

Well, if we were to demonstrate that that occurred at the finale and you were there, did you leave at all?

I stepped out for about an hour, but I was there for most of the filming.

Do you remember JD3 talking about her experiences??

I'm not sure.

You are aware of the allegations in this case?

I have not followed it.

Were you a guest on a podcast by Mr. Ortega that was entirely about this case?

I listened to a podcast he did, and then did a podcast with him. My commentary was in response to the earlier podcast episode.

And that one you were reponding to was about this case?

Yes.

And did you say on the podcast that you had said you had read about past proceedings/

I had not read any transcripts or read anything in detail because the DA's office had reached out to me last year.

You were a guest on the podcast, was it in April? When were you a guest on his podcast?

I’m not sure. February or March, maybe earlier?

If I were to say December 18, 2022, would that refresh your memory?

Yes.

And that was following an earlier proceeding?

Yes.

And during that podcast, one of your quotes was "I’ve been following the case."

Again this was in response to a podcast episode, I was not following the day to day specifics about what was goin on.

You have also tweeted about this case.

Not that I recall.

Would it refresh your recollection (Shows her a tweet) Is that a tweet of yours?

It does appear that way. It has my Twitter handle. I have no recollection of this. It was 2019. I would have to check.

Does that you tweeted... (Obj, sustained. Ask a question without reading it.) Have you publicly expressed support for people you refer to as “brave victims exposing abuse”?

Yes, generally, absolutely.

And in so doing you have made your own determination of the truth of certain allegations?

No, that is not correct.

Would you agree that characterizing in the case the way you have, that you have expressed an interest in the outcome of this case?

I would not agree with that presumption, no.

You talked about KRs, and that an ethics officer makes a determination once a KR is submitted, (what is then done)

Correct.

What happens when there are two people in dispute.

The ethics officer will investigate the matter.

Because there are situations when there is not agreement to what occurred, and there might be two different accounts.

There could be many diferent variations.

Would you agree that a foundational principle is that Scientologists follow the law of the land?

I think that mischaracterizes the policies.

Would you agree that a foundational principle is, “if it isn't written it isn't so”?

“If it isn't written it isn't true:” Yes, that is a foundational principle.

Anything that happens in Scientology must come from scripture.

Scripture, policies, a voluminous amount of information for Scientologists, and they drive the practices of Scientology.

And you would say the language is literal and precise.

You'd have to clarify the question.

Nothing further.

REDIRECT

Anson: Are you here to testify if the victims are credible?

Not at all.

Are you qualified to give any information about the facts of the case?

No.

You were at the finale episode, you observed potentially JD3 giving statmements.

I'm not sure what sh covered. I think she made general references to the case.

Were you presence when any of the other Jane Does talked about their cases?

No.

The Ortega podcast, did you give your opinion that the victims were credible?

Not that I remember, I was only talking about the ethics procedures as to how they would handle anything.

Nothing further.

Holley asks about making a record of Aaron Smith-Levin and Tony Ortega, who are pointed out in the back row.

No further questions.

Judge Olmedo: I think that concludes the people's witnesses for today, so we will break early for today. We will start tomorrow morning at 9 am.

Jury goes into the jury room.

Holley: We have had conversations with Mr. Mueller and Anson concerning what entrances the jury might make by virtue of a brouhaha, in the hall, at least one, and following that brouhaha they were then sequestered, and that came at the end of a lot of testimony about Scientology and harassment. And we confirmed with Deputy Brown that the only person who created any kind of disruption was Mr. Aaron Smith-Levin, who I believe would identify himself as anti-Scientology. Deputy Brown also confirmed there have been no issues with the Masterson family or Scientologists. But given the brouhaha, we are concerned that the jury members might associate their sequestering being associated with Scientology. (She raises the issue of a possible admonition.)

Judge Olmedo: I wouldn’t call it “sequestering.” A partial sequestering. The defense and DA brought to our attention a heated conversation between a man wearing acollar and cross and Mr. Smith-Levin. The court did a full inquiry, five jurors said they heard something. Most said they hadn't heard much of anything, except for Juror 20 who happens to be a court reporter. the court made a finding that they didn't hear anything prejudicial. The court decided because these hallways are small and there's a lot of cases going in trial right now, and they back up, we did not want to have the jurors standing around anyone with anyone with an interest in this course. The court decided that we'll keep them in at lunch, and we're providing them lunch, and at the end of the day they are being taken out in a different elevator, so they don't have to ride down with any interested party. So if there was a second incident, these jurors never witnessed it. So I think it is to the benefit to the defense that these jurors are not being subject to anything whether it's anti-Scientology or pro-Scientology and we have both groups in the audience. If you want me to give an admonition to the jurors that the court is providing them lunch or escorting them out of the building had nothing to do with the parties in this case. Just that it's because the hallways are so busy. I'm happy to write up something and run it by both sides.

Holley: May we make an attempt (at an admonition)?

Judge says they can, and she will work on something tonight.

Want to help?

You can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik.

Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series every week…

Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news