Church of Scientology International Responds to Vanity Fair

                 4 September 2012

Amanda Sidman
NBC Today

Re: Church of Scientology Response to Vanity Fair’s October article 
“What Katie Didn’t Know”

Dear Mrs. Sidman:

Thank you for your inquiry. The beliefs, practices and activities of Churches of Scientology are not defined by the romantic relationships of any individual Scientologist, celebrity or otherwise. 

The entire story appearing in Vanity Fair is hogwash. There was no project, secret or otherwise, ever conducted by the Church to find a bride (via audition or otherwise) for any member of the Church. Never.

The allegations and entire premise of the Vanity Fair article related to Mr. Miscavige, the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion, are totally unfounded and false and categorically denied. The statements and events described about the Church are denied in their entirety.

Vanity Fair relied exclusively on a small group of anti-Scientologists, a handful of self-promoting apostates who are admitted liars and suborners of perjury, for the preposterous allegations and corroboration of the allegations. Indeed, the article fails to quote a single source who is not a vociferous anti-Scientologist. These apostates have shamelessly exploited Tom Cruise's divorce by spreading false and invented tabloid stories in hopes of promoting themselves.

When asked pre-publication about her sources, Ms. Orth said “let me assure you that I have spoken to many people, and not just the self-published group you refer to.” Yet, all nine of her sources openly belong to the “self-published” group. She did not interview one Scientologist. Instead, Ms. Orth exclusively sought out virulent anti-Scientologists. All nine of the sources Ms. Orth was beholden to and put on a pedestal are self-corroborating apostates who were removed for malfeasance and have been obsessed for years with lying about the ecclesiastical leader of the religion, Mr. Miscavige. They have been making up stories for years and this is their latest.

Simply put, this is an anti-religious story that sources to an apostate group. Vanity Fair knew who they were, given that seven of Ms. Orth’s nine sources appear in a year-old Church publication that was provided to Vanity Fair and which exposes these sources as self-corroborating liars, right on page one (see

Ms. Orth and her editors had substantial information contradicting her thesis, but inexplicably chose to ignore it, because the truth would have torpedoed Vanity Fair’s agenda. It should come as no surprise to Vanity Fair’s readers that Maureen Orth came to the Church only after the article was written. 

When the Church asked pre-publication which one of Mr. Cruise’s girlfriends Ms. Orth was asking questions about, she refused to give a name. If Ms. Orth had fulfilled her journalistic duty by providing the Church with an opportunity to meaningfully respond, we would have told her that Nazanin Boniadi and her mother are well-known members of this same group of anti-Scientologists.

Another of Ms. Orth’s sources, Marc Headley, is a member of this group and a member of Anonymous, the cyber-terrorist group. Unrevealed by Ms. Orth is the fact that Headley filed two frivolous lawsuits against the Church, resulting in two dismissals by no less than four federal judges, with the court ordering he pay the Church more than $40,000 in costs. Also revealed during that lawsuit were admissions, under oath, by Headley, that he was a paid tabloid source, selling stories to Life and Style and News of the World beginning more than four years ago. It is notable that following the dismissal of his frivolous lawsuit, Mr. Headley claimed he was incapable of paying the court-ordered costs to the Church.  Within days of losing his case, Mr. Headley's attorney represented that his client could only pay $1,000 in total. Then he offered $1,000 a month for 30 months, reflecting Mr. Headley’s lack of funds.

Then, on Friday, August 31, hours before the “preview” posting of Vanity Fair, a cashier’s check was received by the Church on behalf of Mr. Headley for more than $40,000—begging the question, did Vanity Fair pay Mr. Headley for his “cooperation” in “corroborating” its tabloid story or was there some other quid pro quo?

As another example of Marc Headley’s lack of credibility, consider his changing story: In his self-published 2009 book Headley says he was not involved in the purported “audition” and had no first-hand knowledge of it; on July 8, 2012 on NBC Dateline Headley said he videotaped these phantom auditions. Now he says he was the “head” of the studio (untrue) and oversaw the interview(s). Was Mr. Headley lying in 2009? Was he lying in July? Was he lying to Ms. Orth? Or all three times?

Further, did Ms. Orth ask why some of the very sources she quoted have written books, yet somehow forgot to mention such a wild anecdote they now claim intimate knowledge of? We provide you with some of the correspondence with Vanity Fair after the article was written but before publication. Vanity Fair’s religious bigotry is apparent throughout the article. Ms. Orth wrote through the eyes of apostates who are obsessed with and despise their former religion and its leader.

Vanity Fair ignored all that is happening in the Church of Scientology under Mr. Miscavige’s leadership. Today it is a dynamic global religion expanding across five continents with thousands of new parishioners and dozens of new Churches. 

For more information on the Church of Scientology and its beliefs and practices and to understand why it has continued to grow during the last five years, reaching such a high level of public interest, please visit Also, to see the first Ideal Church of Scientology opened in Israel during the time Vanity Fair actively ignored the Church’s position, please see “Ribbon Falls on ideal center of Scientology for the Middle East” on the home page.

I ask that this letter and the attached correspondence be placed on your website.