How the Danny Masterson trial looks inside the Church of Scientology

We’ve had a couple of good pieces this year from a former Scientology Sea Org manager who is still “under the radar” and maintains relationships with many current, active Scientologists. They wrote about the development of service contracts in the church and also how bestsellers were made of Hubbard books. And this time, we thought we’d ask them about the Danny Masterson trial while we wait for it to resume, and how it’s playing among the members they know.

What are people you know inside the church saying about the trial?

I’m not hearing a ton about it, but that’s not surprising. News about the trial has really only been hitting mainstream media in the past couple of weeks. Outside of your emails and various podcasts there wasn’t much there and you have to search for it. As a Scientologist you have it pounded into you that you are not to search out any “entheta” (bad or upsetting news that will detract from the “goodness” of Scientology). If you happen to come across it, you close whatever it is before reading it. You really don’t want it to come up that you looked at something negative.

The second aspect is that you aren’t supposed to spread entheta about Scientology or Scientologists in good standing. Many Scientologists will not forward news about it, not even if it is an important issue that they’ve spoken out on before such as the #metoo movement. A classic example is Mike Rinder’s daughter Taryn. She is “all about the #metoo movement” when attacking her dad, but I looked at her Instagram and there wasn’t a peep about the Danny Masterson situation. She’s not going to forward the bad news about a Scientologist despite the fact that it would strengthen her message and prove that she does give a shit about the abuse of women.

That being said, there are pockets of chatter but it’s just between people, not groups of people if that makes sense. Some say that Danny is innocent and that these girls are just trying to ruin him. There is word that Leah Remini brought the whole thing about – orchestrated it. There were a couple of people who realized that back in the day they had heard about the sodomy of either Jane Doe 1 or 3 (I forgot which) and it didn’t hit them until this case that it was actually rape and that they actually knew about it at the time. These two are of course second-generation Scientologists, and when that’s the case you definitely don’t grow up with the point of view that someone is the victim of rape but rather the person obviously did something to “pull it in.” Especially if it’s another Scientologist, then more than likely the person “claiming” it is really just trying to stir up trouble or get the person in trouble. If they didn’t want sex they wouldn’t have been in that situation, etc. In other words you’re the cruel one or the tease so what did you expect?

What is your reaction to what Masterson’s accusers are saying, that Scientology tries to cover up crimes committed by its members, and that it shames victims for being victimized?

As the world changes so does Scientology but mainly in the way of how they will cover their ass if something of this nature comes up. For example, back in the early 1990s a friend of mine was raped by another new Sea Org member. She reported it to the Ethics section as well at the Sea Org Security section. She was first told that she was lying and making it up. She then wrote reports and if anyone could find her old file they would see the report of the rape that took place. She persisted that her story was true. Later they acknowledged that she and the person had sex but that she was using rape as an excuse so she wouldn’t get in trouble for violating the 2D rules. (The “second dynamic” or 2D, has to do with family and the act of sex). She was very upset and was fitness-boarded out (a Fitness Board reviews qualifications when needed and determines if someone is fit for duty or not). The consensus was that she knew what she was doing and she was what Scientology called “2D flowy,” which is the same as saying someone is super flirty and leaning toward provocative. The guy was allowed to stay in the Sea Org since he was new, and that he just “fell for her bad behavior” and “her leading him on.”

The word “rape” being thrown around was not really a big deal back then. Today you’d be hard pressed to see that word anywhere on reports, or session papers, etc. Sometimes they will literally black out the word or similar words with a black marker. You get the gist by the rest of the report but there is deniability because the word in not actually there. Sometimes when the attacker goes to the Ethics department to get handled the Ethics Office will verbally be told as well as modified version of the report so that they know what to handle with the person.

So the above example now would be like how Julian helped Jane Doe 1 write her report. It is careful to leave out the damning verbiage and will likely be made to include her own “out-ethics” or “involvement” in the matter.

Another thing done while I was still in the Sea Org was starting to mark all HCO type files as “CONFIDENTIAL: CONTAINS PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGED MATERIALS.” It used to be that only PC folders were marked this way. It was actually one of the Legal statistics to make sure all such files were marked this way. This was an attempt to prevent any legal or law enforcement from being able to access and use the contents of these files. However, in Scientology these are not priest-penitent materials, and they contain what Scientology calls “actionable,” basically non-confidential. You can act on what is in those files.

In general, Scientology’s dirty laundry is supposed to be kept within Scientology. You don’t want to let anything out that would taint or harm Scientology’s reputation. This is a very big deal. Even on the way to becoming a Sea Org Member you will listen to a lecture from Ron called “It’s a PRO World.” PRO = Public Relations Officer. So, PR is HUGE. They believe that they are man’s only salvation and so are the only ones who can truly rid a person of their sinful desires and actions. They tell you that falling into the wog legal or justice system opens the door to bad handlings leading to an unrehabilitated person who will continue committing crimes, or they could end up in the very evil hands of psychiatry where they will forever lose their minds. Scientology is the only thing that will rehabilitate a person.

This idea of condemning another to this is quite enough for most to not report something to wog authorities. You don’t want to completely destroy someone when you have the only technology to save them. This would make you just as evil as the person who committed the crime. Of course, in the case that this doesn’t weigh on your conscious enough you face the fact that Scientology considers these high crimes and so you will be excommunicated (declared suppressive) and that means any of your family, friends, co-workers, etc. that want to remain connected to the organization will have to cut ties with you. The longer you have been in Scientology the more you have to lose. Also if it moves into the category of an attack on the organization, such as hitting the media, you are now subject to attacks back from Scientology (Fair Game, as you have heard). Scientology will view many things as an attack as I am sure you know.

So listening to the women say they didn’t come forward due to Scientology, I think it’s hard to really understand when you haven’t been in that headspace before. To get the courage to go outside of Scientology to seek justice, if you haven’t already lost everyone you have to be prepared for that to occur and for a second generation like Jane Doe 1 that could be everything you’ve known and just about everyone you are related to, friends with or acquainted with. You have to be prepared to have your own family publicly attack you. You have to be ready for them to take things that you brought up in counseling that you understood to be confidential and use it to portray a bad characterization of you. I have seen things get exaggerated or twisted to make them sound worse. It’s a lot to have to experience.

Another way Scientology has come in during the trial is the way Jane Doe 3 describing that she was “out-exchange” for not giving Danny sex whenever he wanted it.

There is a booklet that was written by Mary Sue Hubbard called “Marriage Hats,” and it would get brought up from time to time but was phased out since it was not from LRH and also she was removed off the lines after she was sent to prison for the Snow White Program prosecution. I can’t quote it because it has been so long but it really does talk about it being the wife’s hat to keep the husband happy, to support him, do things for him and so on. Later it would just get brought up whenever there was a disagreement on the subject of sex (man wanting it, woman not). It was the woman’s hat and what was the big deal with just giving it to him if it’ll make him happy?

Exchange is a big issue in Scientology. If someone is your support or even the breadwinner then you do need to be in exchange with them for supporting you financially. It is sort of equivalent to a job. You hire someone and are paying their salary and benefits then you expect them to do work for you in exchange for that. So in a marriage if your significant other does something for you or it your financial support, it is proper to exchange back. It is not that illogical until it comes to trying to “exchange” with a sociopath.

Can you offer any thoughts about why Scientology seems so protective of Danny?

The treatment of celebrities varies depending on how new they are to Scientology and how much of a celebrity they are. In general they are handled with kid gloves. They get special treatment, special course rooms, special auditors, handlers, etc. There is policy and I believe advices on dealing with celebrities. Celebrities tend to be in the news, they are often well connected to other celebrities or opinion leaders so what happens to them will spread.

So you want whatever permeates through their connections to be good, to have Scientology well thought of.

---

Black Friday special: The Whales!

After seeing the questions readers had about the IAS donors list, we figured we ought to do a little more explanation of Scientology and its ‘whales.’ This morning we’re releasing it to everyone. And here’s also the version at our YouTube channel.

---

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…